Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1
`
` 
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00349
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Requested
`
`
`
`
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE USA, INC., and
`ZTE (TX) INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` 
`
`
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS LLC’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`ZTE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2
`
` 
`
`Plaintiff Saint Lawrence Communications LLC (“St. Lawrence” or “Plaintiff”) hereby
`
`submits this Complaint against Defendants ZTE Corporation, ZTE USA, Inc., and ZTE (TX) Inc.
`
`(collectively “ZTE” or “Defendants”) and states as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`St. Lawrence is a Texas limited liability company, having a principal place of
`
`business at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ZTE Corporation is a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, having a principal place of business
`
`at ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong
`
`Province, People’s Republic of China 518057.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ZTE USA, Inc. is a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of New Jersey, having a principal place of business at 2425 North
`
`Central Expressway, Suite 600, Richardson, Texas 75080.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ZTE (TX) Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Texas, having a principal place of business at 2500 Dallas Parkway,
`
`Plano, Texas 75093.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et
`
`seq.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(c) and
`
`1400(b) in that Defendants have done business in this District, have committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District, and continue to commit acts of infringement in this District, entitling
`
`St. Lawrence to relief.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3
`
` 
`
`SUMMARY
`
`7.
`
`VoiceAge Corporation (“VoiceAge”) has been a pioneer in speech and audio
`
`compression technologies since its creation in 1999. VoiceAge is widely recognized as the world’s
`
`leader in developing cutting-edge technologies for wideband, low bit rate speech and audio
`
`compression.1 For example, VoiceAge provided the core technologies for at least nine
`
`international speech and audio standards-based codecs used in both wireless and wireline markets
`
`and applications. VoiceAge’s patented technologies have won every international audio
`
`compression standard to which they have been submitted during the last thirteen years, including
`
`to
`
`the Third Generation Partnership Project
`
`(“3GPP”), 3GPP2,
`
`the
`
`International
`
`Telecommunications Union (“ITU”), the European Telecommunications Standards Institute
`
`(“ETSI”), and the Motion Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) of the International Organization for
`
`Standardization (“ISO”).
`
`8.
`
`One of the international standards based on the patented technologies of VoiceAge
`
`is the Adaptive Multi-Rate-Wideband (“AMR-WB”) standard for wideband speech. AMR-WB is
`
`a wideband speech coding standard which, among other features, provides significantly improved
`
`speech quality at a wider speech bandwidth when compared to narrowband speech coding. AMR-
`
`WB is codified as an international standard, including as G.722.2, which was promulgated as a
`
`standard speech codec by the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (“ITU-T”) as the
`
`“Wideband coding of speech at around 16 kbit/s using Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-
`
`WB).” G.722.2 AMR-WB is the same codec as the 3GPP AMR-WB speech codec, also known
`
`as 3GPP TS 26.190.2
`
`                                                            
`1 VoiceAge was also a leader in narrow-band codecs and innovation.
`2 There have been numerous versions or releases of 3GPP TS 26.190 to date, but each of these practices VoiceAge’s
`patented technologies.
`
`2
`
` 
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4
`
` 
`
`9.
`
`Several speech codecs competed to serve as the foundation for AMR-WB before
`
`the standard was officially adopted. VoiceAge’s competitors included candidate codecs developed
`
`by such industry heavyweights as Ericsson, Motorola, Texas Instruments, and a consortium
`
`comprised of France Telecom, Deutsche Telecom, Nortel Networks, and Siemens.3 The selection
`
`process was rigorous and extensive, involving numerous experiments covering all applications
`
`defined for AMR-WB. During the testing, the VoiceAge codec was the only codec to have no
`
`failures in any test condition. The VoiceAge codec was the superior codec with respect to speech
`
`quality, technical considerations, and test results, and was the codec chosen to be the official AMR-
`
`WB standard. VoiceAge had several patent families, each of which issued prior to the adoption of
`
`the standard, and which are essential to the AMR-WB standard.4 Through the processes regularly
`
`managed by the W-CDMA patent pool, each patent was also independently evaluated by the
`
`International Patent Evaluation Consortium (IPEC) and determined to be essential to the
`
`standard. This evaluation by IPEC was conducted by an Evaluation Panel comprising a lead
`
`Evaluator and two Assistant Evaluators (all three are patent attorneys). The IPEC output
`
`documentation consisted of a detailed report of the patent essentiality determination including
`
`claim charts and an IPEC certificate of essentiality.
`
`10.
`
`The AMR-WB standardized codec serves a variety of important, growing markets
`
`and applications including, but not limited to, high-definition voice services (“HD Voice”) in
`
`wireless telephony, content for media audio, and mobile voice over internet protocol (“VoIP”).
`
`Indeed, in the mobile phone market, HD Voice is the commercial name for the AMR-WB codec.
`
`HD Voice is a ground-breaking development in mobile phone technology, as it overcomes the
`
`limitations of the 300-3400 Hz voiceband traditionally used in mobile telephony; AMR-WB
`
`                                                            
`3 VoiceAge worked with Nokia during the standard-selection process.
`4 VoiceAge also had patents essential to AMR-WB standard issued in numerous international jurisdictions.
`3
`
` 
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5
`
` 
`
`extends audio bandwidth to 50-7000 Hz, materially improving intelligibility over the narrow-band
`
`codec prevalent in mobile telephony.
`
`11.
`
`There are numerous benefits to the users of HD Voice. These include, but are not
`
`limited to, the following:
`
` Sound quality is greatly improved;
`
`It is easier to recognize voices and comprehend accented speech;
`
`It is easier to distinguish confusing or similar sounds, such as between ‘s’ and ‘f’;
`
`It is easier to hear faint voices and to understand speakers in environments in which
`multiple speakers are speaking at the same time;
` Listening is easier and more life-like, resulting in less “listener fatigue” and reducing
`miscommunications and misunderstandings;
`It is easier to understand speakers who use a speakerphone or who are in the presence
`of background noise; and
`It is easier to distinguish and differentiate between multiple voices on a single call.
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In part, due to benefits like these, deployment of HD Voice is accelerating rapidly,
`
`both in the United States and globally. In the United States, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon Wireless
`
`and AT&T have launched and support HD Voice through the AMR-WB codec, with other carriers
`
`announcing plans to do the same later this year. As of March of 2014, at least 329 different mobile
`
`phones support HD Voice. ZTE actively manufactures, imports, markets and sells HD Voice
`
`phones; without the AMR-WB codec developed by VoiceAge, ZTE would be unable to
`
`manufacture, import, market or sell a single HD Voice phone.
`
`13.
`
`Like other manufacturers and vendors who have chosen to implement HD Voice,
`
`ZTE has been given permission to use the HD Voice logo.5 The license agreement governing use
`
`of that HD Voice logo unambiguously requires the use of the AMR-WB codec. For example, the
`
`license agreement mandates that the “minimum requirements for mobile HD Voice devices”
`
`include “[s]upporting the AMR-WB codec.”6
`
`                                                            
`5 See http://www.gsma.com/network2020/hd-voice/ecosystem/
`6 See GSMA’s HD Voice Logo License Agreement, Annex C-Version 1.0, at Annex C2 (“Minimum Requirements
`for Mobile HD Voice devices”), p.5.
`
`4
`
` 
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6
`
` 
`
`14.
`
`As HD Voice began to proliferate across the United States and internationally,
`
`VoiceAge partnered under an agreement with St. Lawrence to protect and license its patented
`
`inventions and intellectual property. ZTE was aware of the patents asserted here prior to the filing
`
`of this Complaint, including through the following:
`
` public information about these patents, the AMR-WB standard, and licenses of these
`
`patents;
`
` pending lawsuits in Germany against Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone filed by an affiliate
`
`of St. Lawrence (St. Lawrence Communications GmbH); and
`
` correspondence between the affiliates of Defendants and St. Lawrence which, among other
`
`things, directed Defendants’ affiliate to a St. Lawrence website that identifies the patents
`
`asserted in this Complaint by number and further claims these patents are essential to the
`
`AMR-WB standard.
`
`ZTE is not licensed to the patents asserted in this Complaint, yet ZTE knowingly, actively, and
`
`lucratively practices and induces others to practice the patents.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,795,805
`
`15.
`
`On September 21, 2004, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 6,795,805 (“the ’805 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Periodicity Enhancement in Decoding Wideband Signals.” St. Lawrence holds all rights, title,
`
`and interest in and to the ’805 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, ZTE has infringed directly and continues to infringe
`
`directly the ’805 Patent. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use,
`
`sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products practicing the AMR-WB Standard (“ZTE HD
`
`Voice phones”). ZTE’s infringing products include at least the HD Voice phones offered for sale
`
`in the United States including, but not limited to the following: ZTE Speed, Boost Max by ZTE,
`5
`
` 
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7
`
` 
`
`ZTE Warp Sync, Boost Warp 4G by ZTE, Boost Force by ZTE, Blade V880, Crescent, Era, F160
`
`Atlanta, Grand X, Grand X IN, Orbit, R252, Kis Pro, Skate, Smart Netphone 701, and Tania, TMN
`
`smart A15. These phones are among the larger range of ZTE HD Voice phones, each of which
`
`practices the ‘805 patent. As alleged above, ZTE had actual notice of the patents asserted here and
`
`of its infringement of these patents. In addition to its direct infringement, ZTE has been and is
`
`now indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement
`
`of the method claims of the ‘805 patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere
`
`within the United States by, among other things, making, using, licensing, selling, offering for
`
`sale, or importing infringing ZTE HD Voice mobile phones, covered by one or more method
`
`claims of the ‘805 patent, all to the injury of St. Lawrence. In the case of such infringement, the
`
`users of the ZTE HD Voice mobile phones are the direct infringers of the ‘805 patent. ZTE
`
`advertises and promotes its ZTE HD Voice Phones on its website.7 ZTE provides, makes, uses,
`
`licenses, sells, and offers its ZTE HD Voice phones for sale with the specific intent that its
`
`customers use those phones in an infringing manner.8 ZTE sells or offers to sell its HD Voice
`
`phones for use in practicing St. Lawrence’s patented processes, and those HD voice phones are
`
`material to practicing St. Lawrence’s invention. The HD voice features have no substantial non-
`
`infringing uses, and are known by ZTE to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of St. Lawrence’s patents by complying with the AMR-WB standard. ZTE’s acts of
`
`                                                            
`7  See, e.g., http://www.zteusa.com/zte-warp; see also http://www.boostmobile.com/shop/phones/zte-speed/ (using
`the HD Voice logo in connection with the ZTE Speed phone).
`8 See, e.g., http://www.gsma.com/network2020/hd-voice/ecosystem/ (listing HTC as part of the HD Voice
`ecosystem.
`
`6
`
`
`
` 
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8
`
` 
`
`infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of St. Lawrence’s patent
`
`rights.
`
`17.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendants have caused damage to St. Lawrence, and
`
`St. Lawrence is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by St. Lawrence as a
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of St.
`
`Lawrence’s exclusive rights under the ’805 Patent by Defendants has damaged and will continue
`
`to damage St. Lawrence.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants actually knew of, or were willfully blind
`
`to, the existence of the ’805 Patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe said patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’805 Patent by Defendants is willful and deliberate, and with full knowledge
`
`of the patent, entitling St. Lawrence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’
`
`fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,807,524
`
`19.
`
`On October 19, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,807,524 (“the ’524 Patent”), entitled “Perceptual Weighting Device and Method for Efficient
`
`Coding of Wideband Signals.” St. Lawrence holds all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’524
`
`Patent.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, ZTE has infringed directly and indirectly and
`
`continues to infringe directly and indirectly the ’524 Patent. The infringing acts include, but are
`
`not limited to, the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products practicing
`
`the AMR-WB Standard. ZTE’s infringing products include at least the HD Voice phones offered
`
`for sale in the United States including, but not limited to but not limited to the following: ZTE
`
`Speed, Boost Max by ZTE, ZTE Warp Sync, Boost Warp 4G by ZTE, Boost Force by ZTE, Blade
`
`V880, Crescent, Era, F160 Atlanta, Grand X, Grand X IN, Orbit, R252, Kis Pro, Skate, Smart
`7
`
` 
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9
`
` 
`
`Netphone 701, and Tania, TMN smart A15. These phones are among the larger range of ZTE HD
`
`Voice phones, each of which practices the ‘524 patent. As alleged above, ZTE had actual notice
`
`of the patents asserted here and of its infringement of these patents. In addition to its direct
`
`infringement, ZTE has been and is now indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement
`
`and/or contributing to the infringement of the method claims of the ‘524 patent in the State of
`
`Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing ZTE HD Voice mobile
`
`phones, covered by one or more method claims of the ‘524 patent, all to the injury of St. Lawrence.
`
`In the case of such infringement, the users of the ZTE HD Voice mobile phones are the direct
`
`infringers of the ‘524 patent. ZTE advertises and promotes its ZTE HD Voice Phones on its
`
`website.9 ZTE provides, makes, uses, licenses, sells, and offers its ZTE HD Voice phones for sale
`
`with the specific intent that its customers use those phones in an infringing manner.10 ZTE sells
`
`or offers to sell its HD Voice phones for use in practicing St. Lawrence’s patented processes, and
`
`those HD voice phones are material to practicing St. Lawrence’s invention. The HD voice features
`
`have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by ZTE to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of St. Lawrence’s patents by complying with the AMR-WB
`
`standard. ZTE’s acts of infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of St.
`
`Lawrence’s patent rights.
`
`                                                            
`9  See, e.g., http://www.zteusa.com/zte-warp; see also http://www.boostmobile.com/shop/phones/zte-speed/ (using
`the HD Voice logo in connection with the ZTE Speed phone).
`10 See, e.g., http://www.gsma.com/network2020/hd-voice/ecosystem/ (listing HTC as part of the HD Voice
`ecosystem.
`
`8
`
`
`
` 
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10
`
` 
`
`21.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendants have caused damage to St. Lawrence, and
`
`St. Lawrence is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by St. Lawrence as a
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of St.
`
`Lawrence’s exclusive rights under the ’524 Patent by Defendants has damaged and will continue
`
`to damage St. Lawrence.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants actually knew of, or were willfully blind
`
`to, the existence of the ’524 Patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe said patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’524 Patent by Defendants is willful and deliberate, and with full knowledge
`
`of the patent, entitling St. Lawrence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’
`
`fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,151,802
`
`23.
`
`On December 19, 2006, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 7,151,802 (“the ’802 Patent”), entitled “High Frequency Content Recovering Method and
`
`Device for Over-Sampled Synthesized Wideband Signal.” St. Lawrence holds all rights, title, and
`
`interest in and to the ’802 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, ZTE has infringed directly and indirectly and
`
`continues to infringe directly and indirectly the ’802 Patent. The infringing acts include, but are
`
`not limited to, the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products practicing
`
`the AMR-WB Standard. ZTE’s infringing products include at least the HD Voice phones offered
`
`for sale in the United States including, but not limited to but not limited to the following: ZTE
`
`Speed, Boost Max by ZTE, ZTE Warp Sync, Boost Warp 4G by ZTE, Boost Force by ZTE, Blade
`
`V880, Crescent, Era, F160 Atlanta, Grand X, Grand X IN, Orbit, R252, Kis Pro, Skate, Smart
`
`Netphone 701, and Tania, TMN smart A15. These phones are among the larger range of ZTE HD
`
` 
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11
`
` 
`
`Voice phones, each of which practices the ‘802 patent. As alleged above, ZTE had actual notice
`
`of the patents asserted here and of its infringement of these patents.
`
`25.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendants have caused damage to St. Lawrence, and
`
`St. Lawrence is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by St. Lawrence as a
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of St.
`
`Lawrence’s exclusive rights under the ’802 Patent by Defendants has damaged and will continue
`
`to damage St. Lawrence.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants actually knew of, or were willfully blind
`
`to, the existence of the ’802 Patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe said patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’802 Patent by Defendants is willful and deliberate, and with full knowledge
`
`of the patent, entitling St. Lawrence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’
`
`fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,260,521
`
`27.
`
`On August 21, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,260,521 (“the ’521 Patent”), entitled “Method and Device for Adaptive Bandwidth Pitch Search
`
`in Coding Wideband Signals.” St. Lawrence holds all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’521
`
`Patent.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, ZTE has infringed directly and continues to infringe
`
`directly the ’521 Patent. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use,
`
`sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products practicing the AMR-WB Standard. ZTE’s
`
`infringing products include at least the HD Voice phones offered for sale in the United States
`
`including, but not limited to but not limited to the following: ZTE Speed, Boost Max by ZTE, ZTE
`
`Warp Sync, Boost Warp 4G by ZTE, Boost Force by ZTE, Blade V880, Crescent, Era, F160
`
`Atlanta, Grand X, Grand X IN, Orbit, R252, Kis Pro, Skate, Smart Netphone 701, and Tania, TMN
`10
`
` 
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12
`
` 
`
`smart A15. These phones are among the larger range of ZTE HD Voice phones, each of which
`
`practices the ‘521 patent. As alleged above, ZTE had actual notice of the patents asserted here and
`
`of its infringement of these patents. In addition to its direct infringement, ZTE has been and is
`
`now indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement
`
`of the method claims of the ‘521 patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere
`
`within the United States by, among other things, making, using, licensing, selling, offering for
`
`sale, or importing infringing ZTE HD Voice mobile phones, covered by one or more method
`
`claims of the ‘521 patent, all to the injury of St. Lawrence. In the case of such infringement, the
`
`users of the ZTE HD Voice mobile phones are the direct infringers of the ‘521 patent. ZTE
`
`advertises and promotes its ZTE HD Voice Phones on its website.11 ZTE provides, makes, uses,
`
`licenses, sells, and offers its ZTE HD Voice phones for sale with the specific intent that its
`
`customers use those phones in an infringing manner.12 ZTE sells or offers to sell its HD Voice
`
`phones for use in practicing St. Lawrence’s patented processes, and those HD voice phones are
`
`material to practicing St. Lawrence’s invention. The HD voice features have no substantial non-
`
`infringing uses, and are known by ZTE to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of St. Lawrence’s patents by complying with the AMR-WB standard. ZTE’s acts of
`
`infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of St. Lawrence’s patent rights
`
`29.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendants have caused damage to St. Lawrence, and
`
`St. Lawrence is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by St. Lawrence as a
`
`                                                            
`11  See, e.g., http://www.zteusa.com/zte-warp; see also http://www.boostmobile.com/shop/phones/zte-speed/ (using
`the HD Voice logo in connection with the ZTE Speed phone).
`12 See, e.g., http://www.gsma.com/network2020/hd-voice/ecosystem/ (listing HTC as part of the HD Voice
`ecosystem.
`
`11
`
`
`
` 
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13
`
` 
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of St.
`
`Lawrence’s exclusive rights under the ’521 Patent by Defendants has damaged and will continue
`
`to damage St. Lawrence.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants actually knew of, or were willfully blind
`
`to, the existence of the ’521 Patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe said patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’521 Patent by Defendants is willful and deliberate, and with full knowledge
`
`of the patent, entitling St. Lawrence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’
`
`fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT V: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,191,123
`
`31.
`
`On March 13, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,191,123 (“the ’123 Patent”), entitled “Gain-Smoothing in Wideband Speech and Audio Signal
`
`Decoder.” St. Lawrence holds all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’123 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, ZTE has infringed directly and indirectly and
`
`continues to infringe directly and indirectly the ’123 Patent. The infringing acts include, but are
`
`not limited to, the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products practicing
`
`the AMR-WB Standard. ZTE’s infringing products include at least the HD Voice phones offered
`
`for sale in the United States including, but not limited to but not limited to the following: ZTE
`
`Speed, Boost Max by ZTE, ZTE Warp Sync, Boost Warp 4G by ZTE, Boost Force by ZTE, Blade
`
`V880, Crescent, Era, F160 Atlanta, Grand X, Grand X IN, Orbit, R252, Kis Pro, Skate, Smart
`
`Netphone 701, and Tania, TMN smart A15. These phones are among the larger range of ZTE HD
`
`Voice phones, each of which practices the ‘123 patent. As alleged above, ZTE had actual notice
`
`of the patents asserted here and of its infringement of these patents. In addition to its direct
`
`infringement, ZTE has been and is now indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement
`
`and/or contributing to the infringement of the method claims of the ‘123 patent in the State of
`12
`
` 
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14
`
` 
`
`Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing ZTE HD Voice mobile
`
`phones, covered by one or more method claims of the ‘123 patent, all to the injury of St. Lawrence.
`
`In the case of such infringement, the users of the ZTE HD Voice mobile phones are the direct
`
`infringers of the ‘123 patent. ZTE advertises and promotes its ZTE HD Voice Phones on its
`
`website.13 ZTE provides, makes, uses, licenses, sells, and offers its ZTE HD Voice phones for
`
`sale with the specific intent that its customers use those phones in an infringing manner.14 ZTE
`
`sells or offers to sell its HD Voice phones for use in practicing St. Lawrence’s patented processes,
`
`and those HD voice phones are material to practicing St. Lawrence’s invention. The HD voice
`
`features have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by ZTE to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in an infringement of St. Lawrence’s patents by complying with the
`
`AMR-WB standard. ZTE’s acts of infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless
`
`disregard of St. Lawrence’s patent rights.
`
`33.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendants have caused damage to St. Lawrence, and
`
`St. Lawrence is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by St. Lawrence as a
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of St.
`
`Lawrence’s exclusive rights under the ’123 Patent by Defendants has damaged and will continue
`
`to damage St. Lawrence.
`
`                                                            
`13  See, e.g., http://www.zteusa.com/zte-warp; see also http://www.boostmobile.com/shop/phones/zte-speed/ (using
`the HD Voice logo in connection with the ZTE Speed phone).
`14 See, e.g., http://www.gsma.com/network2020/hd-voice/ecosystem/ (listing HTC as part of the HD Voice
`ecosystem.
`
`13
`
`
`
` 
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15
`
` 
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants actually knew of, or were willfully blind
`
`to, the existence of the ’123 Patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe said patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’123 Patent by Defendants is willful and deliberate, and with full knowledge
`
`of the patent, entitling St. Lawrence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’
`
`fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`35.
`
`St. Lawrence hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, St. Lawrence requests entry of judgment in its favor and against
`
`Defendants as follows:
`
`a. A declaration that Defendants have infringed and are infringing the ’805, ’524,
`
`’802,’521, and ’123 Patents;
`
`b. An award of damages to St. Lawrence arising out of Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`’805, ’524, ’802,’521, and ’123 Patents, including enhanced damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount
`
`according to proof;
`
`c. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted by
`
`law;
`
`d. An award to St. Lawrence of its costs; and
`
`e. such other and further relief, whether legal, equitable, or otherwise, to which St.
`
`Lawrence may be entitled or which this Court may order.
`
`
`
`15
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17
`
` 
`
`Dated: March 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Demetrios Anaipakos
`Demetrios Anaipakos
`Texas Bar No. 00793258
`danaipakos@azalaw.com
`Amir Alavi
`Texas Bar No. 00793239
`aalavi@azalaw.com
`Alisa A. Lipski
`Texas Bar No. 24041345
`alipski@azalaw.com
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: 713-655-1101
`Facsimile: 713-655-0062
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`16
`
`
`
` 
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`

`
`JS 44 (Rev 12/12)
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 18
` CIVIL COVER SHEET
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
`provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
`purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`DEFENDANTS
`
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
`
`NOTE:
`
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
`
` Attorneys (If Known)
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`
`’ 1 U S Government
`Plaintiff
`
`’ 3 Federal Question
`(U.S. Government Not a Party)
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
` and One Box for Defendant)
` PTF DEF
` PTF
` DEF
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`Citizen of This State
`’ 1
`’ 1
`’ 4
`’ 4
` of Business In This State
`
`’ 2 U S Government
`Defendant
`
`’ 4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`’ 2
`
`’ 2
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`
`’ 5
`
`’ 5
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
` Foreign Country
`
`’ 3
`
`’ 3
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`’ 6
`
`’ 6
`
`BANKRUPTCY
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY
`’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
` of Proper