Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 145
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`and ZTE (TX), INC.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-124
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff Fundamental
`
`Innovation Systems
`
`International LLC
`
`(“Plaintiff” or
`
`“Fundamental”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby amends its Complaint against
`
`Defendants ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”
`
`or “ZTE”) as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business located at 2990 Long Prairie Road, Suite B, Flower Mound, Texas 75022.
`
`2.
`
`Fundamental is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,239,111 (the “’111 Patent”), 7,834,586 (the “’586 Patent”), 7,893,655 (the “’655
`
`Patent”), 8,232,766 (the “’766 Patent”), and 8,624,550 (the “’550 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ZTE Corporation, is a Chinese corporation
`
`with a principal place of business located at No. 55, Hitech Road South, Shenzhen, China
`
`518057. On information and belief, ZTE Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells consumer
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-1
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 146
`
`electronics, mobile phones, and related accessories under the ZTE brand.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. is a New Jersey
`
`Corporation that is headquartered and authorized to do business in Texas and may be served via
`
`its registered agent in Texas. On information and belief, Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of ZTE Corporation and sells consumer electronics, mobile phones, and related
`
`accessories under the ZTE brand.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ZTE (TX), Inc. is a Texas Corporation that
`
`is authorized to do business in Texas and may be served via its registered agent in Texas. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant ZTE (TX), Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ZTE
`
`Corporation and sells consumer electronics, mobile phones, and related accessories under the
`
`ZTE brand.
`
`6.
`
`All of the Defendants operate under and identify with the trade name “ZTE.” On
`
`information and belief, each of the Defendants directly or indirectly imports, develops, designs,
`
`manufactures, uses, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells products and services in the
`
`United States, including in this district, and otherwise purposefully directs activities to the same.
`
`On information and belief, the Defendants have been and are acting in concert and are otherwise
`
`liable jointly, severally or in the alternative for a right to relief with respect to or arising out of
`
`the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making,
`
`using, importing into the United States, offering for sale or selling of at least one infringing
`
`product. For example, on information and belief, ZTE Corporation distributes consumer
`
`electronics, mobile phones, and related accessories under the ZTE brand worldwide, including
`
`within the United States and this District, and such distribution includes acts conducted in
`
`connection with its domestic subsidiaries such as ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States of America, 35 U.S.C. §1, et. seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-2
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 147
`
`subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and §§ 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over ZTE because it has substantial,
`
`systematic, and continuous contacts with this judicial district. On information and belief, ZTE
`
`regularly conducts business in the State of Texas and in this judicial district, and maintains
`
`facilities and employees within Texas. On information and belief, ZTE has sold and offered to
`
`sell infringing products in this State and judicial district and has committed acts of patent
`
`infringement and/or contributed to or induced acts of patent infringement by others in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in Texas. ZTE (USA), Inc. has offices and facilities in Texas and
`
`ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. maintain agents for service of process in Texas, as well as
`
`the presence of authorized retailers/repair facilities for the Accused Products in this judicial
`
`district. For example, ZTE has authorized retailers for the Accused Products in this judicial
`
`district such as Fry’s Electronics, Inc., in Plano, Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and
`
`1400(b). ZTE resides in and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and has a
`
`regular and established place of business in Texas. Further, certain of the acts giving rise to the
`
`claims alleged herein occurred in this judicial district. ZTE has committed acts of infringement
`
`in this judicial district by, among other things, selling, and offering for sale infringing products in
`
`this judicial district.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`The ’550, ‘111, ‘586, and ‘766 Patents relate to, among other things, novel
`
`techniques for using Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) in connection with wireless mobile devices to
`
`both facilitate data communication and allow for the charging of certain classes of devices. This
`
`technology represented a fundamental break from previous techniques for mobile device
`
`charging and has supported the rapid miniaturization of mobile devices, improved user
`
`experiences and led to a dramatic increase in performance and features.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-3
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 148
`
`11.
`
`The ’655 Patent relates to, among other things, novel techniques for charging a
`
`battery with a limited capacity power source (such as a USB power source) while ensuring that
`
`the electronic device is provided with sufficient power needed for operation. Among other
`
`things, this technology enables receiving external power, supplying output power with a current
`
`of greater magnitude than the current of the external power, and restricting current of output
`
`power to a battery responsive to sensing a voltage level at an output node, thereby increasing
`
`power allocated to the electronic device, all without significantly increasing the area of the
`
`semiconductor chips that perform battery charging.
`
`12.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit resulted from a large scale research and development program
`
`at Research In Motion Limited (“RIM”),
`
`later reorganized as BlackBerry Limited
`
`(“BlackBerry”). At the time of invention, RIM was a global leader and pioneer in the field of
`
`wireless mobile communications. The company was founded in 1984 and revolutionized the
`
`mobile industry when it launched the BlackBerry® 850 in 1999. Fundamental is responsible for
`
`protecting and licensing seminal BlackBerry innovations in the field of USB charging.
`ZTE’s Accused Products
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports
`
`infringing products in the United States, including but not limited to infringing mobile devices
`
`and power adapters (the “Accused Products”). Examples of the Accused Products include the
`
`Axon, Axon 7, Axon 7 mini, ZMax, ZMax 2, Trek 2 HD, Nubia Z9, Maven, STC-A5915A-Z,
`
`STC-A5930A-Z, STC-A521A-Z, STC-A515S-Z, and other models that include similar
`
`functionality to the extent not licensed to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, certain of the Accused Products are mobile devices
`
`that can be used with a wireless telecommunications network. The mobile devices include USB
`
`interfaces, USB communication paths and charging sub-systems that are operably connected to
`
`the USB interface. The charging sub-systems are configured to receive power and use the power
`
`to charge a battery. The mobile devices are able to detect an identification signal received via
`
`the USB interface, which may be an abnormal USB data condition and is different than USB
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-4
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 149
`
`enumeration. The identification signal enables the mobile device to draw current unrestricted by
`
`a USB specification limit.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, certain of the Accused Products are devices that
`
`include a rechargeable battery and USB-compliant charging and power supply circuits. Such
`
`devices have functions unrelated to the rechargeable battery or battery charging. The Accused
`
`Products include switch-mode battery charging circuitry that receives power from an external
`
`source such as USB and supplies power through an output node of the switch-mode battery
`
`charging circuitry to the device and via a switch to the rechargeable battery. The switch-mode
`
`battery charging circuitry is able to supply output power with a current that is greater than the
`
`current from the external power source. The Accused Products also include battery isolation
`
`circuitry that can receive a reference voltage from the device, determine a minimum voltage
`
`value, sense that an output voltage at the output node is below the minimum value, and control
`
`the switch to restrict current to the rechargeable battery in order to increase power allocated to
`
`the device. The Accused Products comprise a battery charge controller configured to limit
`
`output power such that the device and rechargeable battery may not draw more than
`
`predetermined maximum current available from a USB port. The Accused Products include a
`
`voltage sensing circuit configured to measure a voltage drop across a battery charge controller
`
`and to respond to the voltage drop across the controller by modulating a switch to control an
`
`amount of current supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the device receives a
`
`predetermined amount of power needed to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a
`
`remainder of the power available from the controller.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, certain of the Accused Products are USB adapters that
`
`are designed to provide power to a mobile device through a USB port. The Accused Products
`
`receive power from a power socket and include a power converter that regulates the received
`
`power to generate a DC power output. The Accused Products are configured to generate an
`
`identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that it is receiving power from a source
`
`that is not a USB host or hub. The Accused Products are able to supply current to a mobile
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-5
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 150
`
`device without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification.
`ZTE’s Knowledge of Patents-in-Suit and Infringement
`
`17.
`
`No later than December 11, 2015, ZTE had first received specific notice that it
`
`infringes the Patents-in-Suit via a letter from Fundamental to Mr. Jim Wang, Chief Legal
`
`Representative of ZTE USA, Inc.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, subsequent to December 11, 2015, ZTE has continued
`
`to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import into the United States the Accused Products. As an
`
`example, ZTE has continued to sell, offer to sell and import Accused Products via its own web
`
`sites, including https://www.zteusa.com/, and through authorized retailers and distributors.
`
`ZTE’s making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing of the Accused Products into the
`
`United States constitute direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). On information and
`
`belief, ZTE also directly infringes one or more method claims in the Patents-in-Suit by testing,
`
`repairing, and using the Accused Products in the United States.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, subsequent to December 11, 2015, ZTE has continued
`
`to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import into the United States the Accused Products with
`
`knowledge that these Accused Products are a material part of inventions claimed by the Patents-
`
`in-Suit and are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. On
`
`information and belief, ZTE knows that the Accused Products are not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. ZTE’s actions contribute to
`
`the direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by others, including customers of the Accused
`
`Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). For example, the Accused Products include battery
`
`charging adapters, which are a component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination,
`
`or an apparatus for use in practicing a patented process. Furthermore, such components are a
`
`material part of the invention and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, subsequent to December 11, 2015, ZTE has continued
`
`to advertise and distribute the Accused Products, offer technical assistance, and publish user
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-6
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 151
`
`manuals, specifications, promotional literature or instructions to customers, partners, and/or end
`
`users, advising them to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the Patents-
`
`in-Suit. On information and belief, by such acts, ZTE actively induced, and continues to actively
`
`induce, direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). For
`
`example, Defendants’ customers who purchase the Accused Products and operate the Accused
`
`Products in accordance with instructions provided by ZTE, directly infringe one or more claims
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit. ZTE provides such instructions through, for example, user guides,
`
`including user guides located at: https://www.zteusa.com/support_page/.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has further actively induced infringement by
`
`remaining willfully blind to its customers’ infringement despite believing there to be a high
`
`probability its customers, among others, infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766)
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`22.
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`The ’766 Patent, titled “Multifunctional Charger System and Method,” was duly
`
`and legally issued on July 31, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ’766 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`24.
`
`The ’766 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
`
`Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
`
`25.
`
`The ’766 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
`
`owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’766 Patent, including the
`
`exclusive right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, directly infringing
`
`the ’766 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States
`
`Accused Products including, for example, Axon, Axon 7, Axon 7 mini, ZMax, ZMax 2, Trek 2
`
`HD, Maven, Nubia Z9, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent not
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-7
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 152
`
`licensed to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
`
`of the ’766 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by knowingly encouraging or aiding others
`
`to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, or to import the
`
`Accused Products into the United States, without license or authority from Fundamental, with
`
`knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that ZTE’s actions will induce others, including but
`
`not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe the ’766 patent. ZTE
`
`induces others to infringe the ’766 patent by encouraging and facilitating others to perform
`
`actions that ZTE knows to be acts of infringement of the ’766 patent with intent that those
`
`performing the acts infringe the ’766 patent.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, contributorily
`
`infringing the ’766 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale, in
`
`this judicial district and throughout the United States, components that embody a material part of
`
`the inventions described in the ’766 Patent, are known by ZTE to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’766 Patent, and are not staple articles of
`
`commerce or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including at least the
`
`Accused Products. ZTE’s actions contribute to the direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by
`
`others, including customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`29.
`
`As a result of ZTE’s infringement of the ’766 Patent, Fundamental has been
`
`damaged. Fundamental is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of ZTE’s
`
`wrongful acts in an amount to be determined.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, ZTE’s infringing acts have caused and are causing immediate and
`
`irreparable harm to Fundamental.
`
`31.
`
`ZTE has had actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’766 Patent since no
`
`later than December 11, 2015. On information and belief, ZTE’s infringement of the ’766 Patent
`
`has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an exceptional case
`
`warranting an award of treble damages and attorney’s fees to Fundamental pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-8
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 153
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586)
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`32.
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`The ’586 Patent, titled “Multifunctional Charger System and Method,” was duly
`
`and legally issued on November 16, 2010. A true and correct copy of the ’586 Patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit B.
`
`34.
`
`The ’586 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
`
`Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
`
`35.
`
`The ’586 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
`
`owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’586 Patent, including the
`
`right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, directly infringing the
`
`’586 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused Products including, for example, Axon, Axon 7, Axon 7 mini, ZMax, ZMax 2, Trek 2
`
`HD, Maven, Nubia Z9, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent not
`
`licensed to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
`
`of the ’586 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by knowingly encouraging or aiding others
`
`to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, or to import the
`
`Accused Products into the United States, without license or authority from Fundamental, with
`
`knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that ZTE’s actions will induce others, including but
`
`not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe the ’586 patent. ZTE
`
`induces others to infringe the ’586 patent by encouraging and facilitating others to perform
`
`actions that ZTE knows to be acts of infringement of the ’586 patent with intent that those
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-9
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 154
`
`performing the acts infringe the ’586 patent.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, contributorily
`
`infringing the ’586 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale, in
`
`this judicial district and throughout the United States, components that embody a material part of
`
`the inventions described in the ’586 Patent, are known by ZTE to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’586 Patent, and are not staple articles of
`
`commerce or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including at least the
`
`Accused Products. ZTE’s actions contribute to the direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by
`
`others, including customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`39.
`
`As a result of ZTE’s infringement of the ’586 Patent, Fundamental has been
`
`damaged. Fundamental is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of ZTE’s
`
`wrongful acts in an amount to be determined.
`
`40.
`
`In addition, ZTE’s infringing acts have caused and are causing immediate and
`
`irreparable harm to Fundamental.
`
`41.
`
`ZTE has had actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’586 Patent since no
`
`later than December 11, 2015. On information and belief, ZTE’s infringement of the ’586 Patent
`
`has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an exceptional case
`
`warranting an award of treble damages and attorney’s fees to Fundamental pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111)
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`42.
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`The ’111 Patent, titled “Universal Serial Bus Adapter For A Mobile Device” was
`
`duly and legally issued on July 3, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ’111 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`44.
`
`The ’111 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-10
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 155
`
`Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
`
`45.
`
`The ’111 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
`
`owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’111 Patent, including the
`
`right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, directly infringing the
`
`’111 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States
`
`Accused Products including, for example, STC-A5915A-Z, STC-A5930A-Z, STC-A521A-Z,
`
`STC-A515S-Z, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent not licensed to
`
`the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
`
`of the ’111 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by knowingly encouraging or aiding others
`
`to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, or to import the
`
`Accused Products into the United States, without license or authority from Fundamental, with
`
`knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that ZTE’s actions will induce others, including but
`
`not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe the ’111 patent. ZTE
`
`induces others to infringe the ’111 patent by encouraging and facilitating others to perform
`
`actions that ZTE knows to be acts of infringement of the ’111 patent with intent that those
`
`performing the acts infringe the ’111 patent.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, contributorily
`
`infringing the ’111 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale, in
`
`this judicial district and throughout the United States, components that embody a material part of
`
`the inventions described in the ’111 Patent, are known by ZTE to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’111 Patent, and are not staple articles of
`
`commerce or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including at least the
`
`Accused Products. ZTE’s actions contribute to the direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by
`
`others, including customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`49.
`
`As a result of ZTE’s infringement of the ’111 Patent, Fundamental has been
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-11
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 156
`
`damaged. Fundamental is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of ZTE’s
`
`wrongful acts in an amount to be determined.
`
`50.
`
`In addition, ZTE’s infringing acts have caused and are causing immediate and
`
`irreparable harm to Fundamental.
`
`51.
`
`ZTE has had actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’111 Patent since no
`
`later than December 11, 2015. On information and belief, ZTE’s infringement of the ’111 Patent
`
`has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an exceptional case
`
`warranting an award of treble damages and attorney’s fees to Fundamental pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550)
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`52.
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`53.
`
`The ’550 Patent, titled “Multifunctional Charger System and Method” was duly
`
`and legally issued on January 7, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’550 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`54.
`
`The ’550 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
`
`Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
`
`55.
`
`The ’550 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
`
`owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’550 Patent, including the
`
`right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, directly infringing the
`
`’550 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused Products including, for example, STC-A5915A-Z, STC-A5930A-Z, STC-A521A-Z,
`
`STC-A515S-Z, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent not licensed to
`
`the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-12
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 157
`
`57.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
`
`of the ’550 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by knowingly encouraging or aiding others
`
`to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, or to import the
`
`Accused Products into the United States, without license or authority from Fundamental, with
`
`knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that ZTE’s actions will induce others, including but
`
`not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe the ’550 patent. ZTE
`
`induces others to infringe the ’550 patent by encouraging and facilitating others to perform
`
`actions that ZTE knows to be acts of infringement of the ’550 patent with intent that those
`
`performing the acts infringe the ’550 patent.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, contributorily
`
`infringing the ’550 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale, in
`
`this judicial district and throughout the United States, components that embody a material part of
`
`the inventions described in the ’550 Patent, are known by ZTE to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’550 Patent, and are not staple articles of
`
`commerce or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including at least the
`
`Accused Products. ZTE’s actions contribute to the direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by
`
`others, including customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`59.
`
`As a result of ZTE’s infringement of the ’550 Patent, Fundamental has been
`
`damaged. Fundamental is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of ZTE’s
`
`wrongful acts in an amount to be determined.
`
`60.
`
`In addition, ZTE’s infringing acts have caused and are causing immediate and
`
`irreparable harm to Fundamental.
`
`61.
`
`ZTE has had actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’550 Patent since no
`
`later than December 11, 2015. On information and belief, ZTE’s infringement of the ’550 Patent
`
`has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an exceptional case
`
`warranting an award of treble damages and attorney’s fees to Fundamental pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-13
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 158
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,893,655)
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`62.
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63.
`
`The ’655 Patent, titled “Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices” was
`
`duly and legally issued on February 22, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’655 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit E.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`The ’655 Patent names Dusan Veselic as inventor.
`
`The ’655 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
`
`owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’655 Patent, including the
`
`right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`
`66.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, directly infringing the
`
`’655 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused Products including, for example, the ZTE Z Max 2, and other models that include
`
`similar functionality to the extent not licensed to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
`
`of the ’655 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by knowingly encouraging or aiding others
`
`to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, or to import the
`
`Accused Products into the United States, without license or authority from Fundamental, with
`
`knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that ZTE’s actions will induce others, including but
`
`not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe the ’655 patent. ZTE
`
`induces others to infringe the ’655 patent by encouraging and facilitating others to perform
`
`actions that ZTE knows to be acts of infringement of the ’655 patent with intent that those
`
`performing the acts infringe the ’655 patent.
`
`68.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE has been, and currently is, contributorily
`
`infringing the ’655 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale, in
`
`Fundamental Ex 2016-14
`ZTE et al v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00124-JRG Document 25 Filed 05/12/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 159
`
`this judicial district and throughout the United States, components that embody a material part of
`
`the inventions described in the ’655 Patent, are known by ZTE to be especially made or
`
`espec