Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 1 of 4
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1051
`Apple v. Seven Networks
`IPR2020-00707
`
`

`

`Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 2 of 4
`Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1
`Filed 08/10/2005
`Page 2 of4
`
`5..
`
`Defendant Visto Corporation (“Vista”) is a Delaware corporation having its
`
`principal place of business at 275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300, Redwood Shores, CA 94065..
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6.
`
`Seven holds all right, title and interest in and to United States Patent No.
`
`5,857,201 entitled, “Enterprise Connectivity To Handheld Devices” (the “”201 patent”), filed on
`
`June 18, 1996.. The "201 patent was duly and properly issued on January 5, 1999. A copy ofthe
`
`‘201 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint
`
`’7.
`
`Seven holds all right, title and interest in and to United States Patent No.
`
`6,324,542 B1 entitled, “Enterprise Connectivity To Handheld Devices” (the “”542 patent”), filed
`
`on December 23, 1998. The ‘542 patent was duly and properly issued on November 27, 2001 .
`
`A copy ofthe ‘542 patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. The ‘542 patent and the
`
`“201 patent are collectively referred to as the “patents-in-suit ”
`
`8
`
`Defendant Visto provides messaging products and services under the name “Visto
`
`Mobile” (the “Accused Products”) The activities of defendant in marketing its products and
`
`services infiinge, contributorily infringe, and/or induce infringement of at least one claim of each
`
`of‘the Seven patents—in-suit.
`
`MT—I
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,857,201 and 6,324,542)
`
`9.
`
`Seven incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8 as though fully restated herein.
`
`10.
`
`Visto has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘201 and ‘542 patents under 35
`
`U S C. § 2'71 in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by Visto’s manufacture,
`
`sale, offering for sale, and use, without authority or license of Seven, of the Accused Products.
`
`11
`
`Vista has contributorily infringed and continues to contributorily infringe and
`
`induce others to infringe the ‘201 and ‘542 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in this judicial district
`
`and elsewhere in the United States, by Visto’s manufacture, sale, offering for sale, and use,
`
`without authority oflicense ofSeven, of'the Accused Products.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`up..mrmwrmrswm......
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 3 of 4
`Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1
`Filed 08/10/2005
`Page 3 of4
`
`12
`
`Visto’s acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to
`
`cause, irreparable injury and damage to Seven for which Seven has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`Unless preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court, Visto will continue to so infringe
`
`and induce others to infringe the patents—in—suit.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREF ORE, plaintiff Seven prays for:
`
`1..
`
`That defendant Visto, and its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, agents,
`
`servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns and all those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them, or any of them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from making,
`
`using, offering for sale, selling or causing to be sold any product falling within, or designed to
`
`conduct a method falling within, the scope of' United States Patent Nos. 6,324,542 and
`
`5,857,201; or otherwise infringing or contributing to or inducing infringement of any claims of
`
`these patents.
`
`2.
`
`That defendant Visto, and its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, agents,
`
`servants, employees, attorneys, Successors and assigns and all those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them, or any of them, be ordered to destroy or offer up to Seven for
`
`destruction any and all products within the scope of‘United States patent Nos. 6,324,542 and
`
`5,857,201 in their possession, custody, or control.
`
`3.
`
`That Seven be awarded its lost profits, and/or other damages, in an amount not
`
`less than a reasonable royalty, to be assessed by or under the Court’s discretion, adequate to
`
`compensate Seven for infringement of'Seven’s patents-in—suit, together with pie-judgment
`
`interest.
`
`4.
`
`That the Court declare this case an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U S .0 § 285
`
`and award Seven its attorney’s fees.
`
`5.
`
`That Seven recover from defendant Visto increased damages in the amount of'
`
`three times the amount of Sevens actual damages pursuant to 35 U SC. {2' 284
`
`COMPLAIN?
`
`
`
`”WWWWmmflwu..mw.r.“mymm.....
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 4 of 4
`Case 2:05-cv-00365-TJW-CE Document 1
`Filed 08/10/2005
`Page 4 of4
`
`6..
`
`That Seven recover from defendant Visto, Seven’s costs and disbursements in
`
`preparing for and pursuing this action.
`
`‘7.
`
`That Seven be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Seven requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 a trial by jury on all
`
`issues triable by right to a jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment or as given by a statue of
`
`the United States
`
`Resp ctfull
`
`submitted,
`
`
`
`aIVin Capshaw, Attorney—i Charge
`S.
`State Bar No 03783900
`
`
`
`
`BROWN McCARROLL, L LP.
`
`1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220 (75601)
`P. O. Box 3999
`
`Longview, Texas 75606-3999
`Telephone: 903-236-9800
`Facsimile: 903-236—8787
`
`E—mail: ccapshaw@mailbmc.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, INC.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ZTE (USA) INC. and
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-440
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff SEVEN Networks, LLC (“SEVEN”) files this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement of several United States patents as identified below (collectively, the “Patents-in-
`
`Suit”) and alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`SEVEN is a company formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place
`
`of business at 2660 East End Boulevard South, Marshall, Texas 75672.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc., is a subsidiary of ZTE Corporation and is formed
`
`under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 2425 North Central
`
`Expressway, Suite 800, Richardson, Texas 75080. ZTE (USA) Inc. may be served through its
`
`agent Jing Li at 2425 North Central Expressway, Suite 323, Richardson, Texas 75080.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant ZTE Corporation is a Chinese corporation with a principal place of
`
`business located at ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District,
`
`Shenzhen Prefecture, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China 518057.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`SEVEN brings this civil action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 1
`
`5
`
`

`

`the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281-285. This Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`5.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively “ZTE”) transact and
`
`conduct business in this District and the State of Texas, and are subject to the personal
`
`jurisdiction of this Court. For example, ZTE (USA) Inc. maintains its corporate headquarters in
`
`Richardson, Texas. Further, ZTE markets and sells mobile products, such as smartphones and
`
`tablets, throughout the United States including the State of Texas and this District. For example,
`
`ZTE markets and sells its mobile products through its website https://www.zteusa.com/.
`
`6.
`
`ZTE has recognized that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it in a number of
`
`other patent infringement matters, including but not limited to Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp.
`
`et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00179.
`
`7.
`
`SEVEN’s causes of action arise, at least in part, from ZTE’s business contacts
`
`and activities in this District and elsewhere within the State of Texas. ZTE has committed acts
`
`of infringement in this District and within Texas by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
`
`importing into the United States products that infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`as set forth herein. Further, ZTE encourages others within this District to use its mobile
`
`products and thereby infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. For example, ZTE
`
`advertises its mobile devices, such as its smart phones, through its website:
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/products/all-phones/.
`
`8.
`
`ZTE actively solicits customers within this District and the State of Texas, and
`
`has sold many of its infringing mobile products to residents of Texas and this District.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
`
`In other patent infringement matters involving ZTE’s mobile products, such as
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., ZTE has acknowledged that for patent infringement actions involving its
`
`mobile products venue is proper in this District.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`11.
`
`On August 19, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,811,952, titled “Mobile Device Power Management in
`
`Data Synchronization Over a Mobile Network With or Without a Trigger Notification,” to
`
`inventors Trevor Fiatal et al. (“the ’952 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’952 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`On January 26, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,247,019, titled “Mobile Application Traffic Optimization,” to inventors Michael Luna et al.
`
`(“the ’019 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’019 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`On April 26, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,325,600,
`
`titled “Offloading Application Traffic to a Shared Communication Channel for Signal
`
`Optimization in a Wireless Network for Traffic Utilizing Proprietary and Non-Proprietary
`
`Protocols,” to inventors Rami Alisawi et al. (“the ’600 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the
`
`’600 Patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`On May 24, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,351,254,
`
`titled “Method for Power Saving in Mobile Devices by Optimizing Wakelocks,” to inventors Ari
`
`Backholm et al. (“the ’254 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’254 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D to this Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`On December 6, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,516,127, titled “Intelligent Alarm Manipulator and Resource Tracker,” to inventors Abhay
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`7
`
`

`

`Nirantar et al. (“the ’127 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’127 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit E to this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`On December 6, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,516,129, titled “Mobile Application Traffic Optimization,” to inventors Michael Luna et al.
`
`(“the ’129 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’129 Patent is attached as Exhibit F to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`On January 24, 2017, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,553,816, titled “Optimizing Mobile Network Traffic Coordination Across Multiple
`
`Applications Running on a Mobile Device,” to inventors Michael Luna et al. (“the ’816
`
`Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’816 Patent is attached as Exhibit G to this Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`SEVEN owns the entire right and title to each of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`For nearly two decades, SEVEN has researched and developed innovative
`
`software solutions for mobile devices to enhance the user experience. For example, SEVEN has
`
`developed software technologies to manage mobile traffic in order to conserve network and
`
`battery resources. Software applications on mobile devices are frequently signaling the network
`
`for a variety of reasons. Much of the signaling from these software applications is unnecessary
`
`and simply consumes precious bandwidth and remaining battery power. This needless mobile
`
`traffic negatively impacts the user’s overall experience by creating service overloads and outages
`
`or draining the limited battery of the mobile device. SEVEN’s technologies are able to optimize
`
`mobile traffic to conserve both network and battery resources.
`
`20.
`
`SEVEN has been recognized in the industry for its innovative technologies and
`
`products. For example, at the Mobile World Congress in 2011, the GSMA awarded SEVEN with
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`8
`
`

`

`its Global Mobile Award for Best Technology Breakthrough. Further, in 2013 SEVEN won the
`
`Mobile Merit Award for its outstanding innovations in the mobile industry and was identified as
`
`one of fifty mobile companies to watch by AlwaysOn. SEVEN was also awarded the Best Free
`
`Android App in 2013 by TechRadar. Additionally, and among other industry recognition,
`
`Telecoms.com identified SEVEN in its Best LTE Traffic Management Product Short List.
`
`21.
`
`Battery life for mobile devices is a major driver for consumer purchasing
`
`decisions. In a 2014 poll by Ubergizmo of 50,000 participants, battery life was rated as a
`
`smartphone’s most important feature. ZTE recognizes the importance of battery life, and
`
`advertises its products’ ability to optimize energy efficiency on its website
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/blade/.
`
`22.
`
`ZTE utilizes software technologies for conserving battery and extending the
`
`battery life of its mobile devices. As described below, these mobile devices infringe SEVEN’s
`
`innovative and patented technologies to manage mobile traffic and save battery power.
`
`COUNT 1
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 8,811,952)
`
`23.
`
`ZTE infringes at least claim 26 of the ’952 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) and
`
`(b). ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States products, such as the
`
`ZTE Blade v8 Pro, that meet every limitation of at least claim 26.
`
`24.
`
`Claim 26 of the ’952 Patent is directed to a mobile device with a processor
`
`configured to: (1) exchange transactions with a client operating in a network through a
`
`connection provided through a server coupled to the client; (2) automatically send
`
`synchronization requests from the mobile device to the network on a periodic basis, wherein the
`
`periodicity of the synchronization requests occur at a frequency determined according to the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`9
`
`

`

`remaining battery power on the mobile device; and (3) exchange synchronization
`
`communications with the client over the connection after sending each synchronization request.
`
`25.
`
`ZTE’s products infringe at least claim 26 of the ’952 Patent. For example, the
`
`ZTE Blade v8 Pro (“Blade”) includes a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor and can operate in a
`
`variety of networks such as GSM, UMTS, LTE, and WiFi. It also includes a touch screen user
`
`interface. Further, the Blade includes internal memory for storing the device’s operating system
`
`and other software applications. For example, it uses the Android software operating system,
`
`such as Android 6.0 (also known as Marshmallow). The Blade also includes a number of mobile
`
`applications that communicate with the applications’ respective servers through the various
`
`networks to exchange communications between the mobile application and the application
`
`server. One example is the Gmail application. The mobile device, through its communications
`
`interface including the device’s network antenna, exchanges communications between the Gmail
`
`application and the email servers using mobile or WiFi networks. To keep its information up-to-
`
`date and fresh, the Gmail application synchronizes with its respective email servers periodically,
`
`such as every 5, 10, 15, 30, or 60 minutes. In synchronizing, the Gmail application will request
`
`that the Blade communicate—through the communications interface and network—a
`
`synchronization message to the email server. The email server will respond to the
`
`synchronization message from the Gmail application and return information back to the Blade to
`
`be routed to the Gmail application. But through one or more of the device’s power saving modes,
`
`when the remaining battery power on the Blade falls below some threshold amount, such as 15%
`
`or 5% remaining battery power, Gmail will stop synchronizing periodically.
`
`26.
`
`Other ZTE products similarly infringe one or more claims of the ’952 Patent.
`
`Such other products include ZTE’s Axon, ZMAX, ZPAD, and Trek devices.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`10
`
`

`

`27.
`
`ZTE also induces infringement by end users of ZTE’s mobile devices of at least
`
`claim 26 of the ’952 Patent. ZTE promotes and advertises the use of its products, especially the
`
`products’ capability to preserve remaining battery and avoid battery drain from background
`
`applications. The infringing power saving functionality is included in ZTE’s mobile devices by
`
`default. Examples of ZTE’s promotional materials appear on the company’s website, such as
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/blade/.
`
`28.
`
`ZTE has had notice of the ’952 Patent and its infringement since at least as early
`
`as the filing of this lawsuit. Accordingly, ZTE’s continued promotion, advertisement, and
`
`encouragement of its customers to utilize the products’ capability to preserve battery life and
`
`avoid battery drain from background applications is evidence of ZTE’s specific intent to induce
`
`others to infringe the ’952 Patent. Further, despite having knowledge of its infringement, ZTE
`
`continues to intentionally and willfully infringe at least claim 26 of the ’952 patent.
`
`COUNT 2
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,247,019)
`
`29.
`
`ZTE infringes at least claim 1 of the ’019 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §271(a)
`
`and (b). ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States products, such as
`
`the Blade, that meet every limitation of at least claim 1.
`
`30.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’019 Patent is directed to a mobile device configured to: (1) delay
`
`content requests made by multiple applications; (2) align content request using observed activity
`
`of a user of the mobile device that includes a time since a last key press and mobile device
`
`properties; (3) poll in accordance with the aligned content requests to satisfy content requests of
`
`at least some of the multiple mobile applications; (4) monitor the time since a last key press, and,
`
`when the time exceeds a predetermined time period, locally adjust the mobile device by
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`11
`
`

`

`suppressing the aligned content requests at the mobile device for a first suppression period, and
`
`after expiration of the first suppression period, transmit any aligned content requests; and (5)
`
`suppress subsequent content request at the mobile device for a second suppression period, where
`
`the second suppression period is longer than the first suppression period.
`
`31.
`
`In addition to the features described in previous paragraphs, ZTE’s products,
`
`such as its Blade, are capable of delaying and aligning content requests from mobile applications
`
`based on observed user activity. For example, the Blade has multiple applications that send
`
`content requests. The Blade also has a touch screen that a user can press to interact with the
`
`phone and other applications. The Blade also includes the Android software operating system,
`
`such as Marshmallow. Further, Blade includes a Doze mode that reduces traffic from the mobile
`
`device when the device is not actively in use, thereby reducing battery drain by mobile
`
`applications that are frequently signaling to their respective application servers. The Blade is able
`
`to monitor the time since a button was last pressed, for example through the auto-off timer and
`
`last user activity time to determine when to turn the screen of the device off. Further, when the
`
`Blade device detects that the screen is off, the device is unplugged and stationary for some time,
`
`it enters Doze mode. Once in Doze mode, the Blade is able to conserve battery resources by
`
`restricting mobile applications’ access to the network, and defers the mobile applications’
`
`requests until a maintenance window. As the requests from the mobile applications are deferred,
`
`the requests are also aligned such that when a maintenance window occurs the multiple mobile
`
`applications are allowed to communicate using the network. Following the maintenance window,
`
`the mobile applications’ are once again restricted from accessing the network, this time for a
`
`period longer than the first. The figure below illustrates the reduction in traffic from the Blade
`
`provided by Doze.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`32.
`
`Other ZTE products similarly infringe one or more claims of the ’019 Patent.
`
`Such other products include ZTE’s Axon, ZMAX, ZPAD, and Trek devices.
`
`33.
`
`ZTE also induces infringement by end users of its mobile devices of at least claim
`
`1 of the ’019 Patent. ZTE promotes and advertises the use of its products, especially the
`
`products’ capability to preserve remaining battery and avoid battery drain from background
`
`applications. Further, the Doze functionality is enabled on ZTE’s mobile devices by default.
`
`Examples of ZTE’s promotional materials appear on the company’s website, such as
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/blade/.
`
`34.
`
`ZTE has had notice of the ’019 Patent and its infringement since at least as early
`
`as the filing of this lawsuit. Accordingly, ZTE’s continued promotion, advertisement, and
`
`encouragement of its customers to utilize the products’ capability to preserve battery life and
`
`avoid battery drain from background applications is evidence of ZTE’s specific intent to induce
`
`others to infringe the ’019 Patent. Despite having knowledge of its infringement, ZTE continues
`
`to intentionally and willfully infringe at least claim 1 of the ’019 patent.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`13
`
`

`

`COUNT 3
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,325,600)
`
`35.
`
`ZTE infringes at least claim 7 of the ’600 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §271(a)
`
`and (b). ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States products, such as
`
`the Blade, that meet every limitation of at least claim 7.
`
`36.
`
`Claim 7 of the ’600 Patent is directed to memory and code to implement a
`
`processor controlled system for reducing network traffic, comprising: (1) blocking a first channel
`
`such that network signaling and battery consumption are reduced, wherein the first channel
`
`includes a non-common channel; (2) offloading application traffic of an application onto a second
`
`channel, wherein the second channel includes a common channel; (3) monitoring the application
`
`traffic of the application over the second channel; (4) unblocking the first channel based on the
`
`monitored application traffic over the second channel so that the application can perform an
`
`action; and (5) re-blocking the first channel after the action has been completed.
`
`37.
`
`In addition to features described in previous paragraphs, ZTE’s products, such as
`
`its Blade, have memory and code to utilize common and non-common channels for application
`
`traffic and are capable of reducing network traffic by blocking the non-common channel to
`
`prevent applications from frequently communicating in the background using the non-common
`
`channels and draining battery resources. For example, mobile applications communicate with
`
`their respective servers by establishing application-specific connections to transmit information
`
`between the application on the mobile device and the application server in the network. Software
`
`applications on the mobile device are not able to utilize the application-specific connections
`
`established by other applications. To conserve battery by reducing network traffic, the Blade is
`
`able to block the application-specific connections. For example, the Blade includes the Doze
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`14
`
`

`

`functionality that restricts a mobile application’s access to the network. But to avoid users
`
`missing critical information, the Blade allows applications to receive messages using a common
`
`channel when the application-specific channels are blocked. For example, when in Doze, the
`
`Blade offloads application traffic onto the Google Cloud Messaging (“GCM”) channel or
`
`Firebase Cloud Messaging channel (“FCM”), which is shared among all applications on the
`
`Blade. Through GCM/FCM high priority messages directed to the applications may be delivered
`
`even when the application-specific channels are blocked. The Blade monitors traffic over the
`
`GCM/FCM channel such that when messages are received for particular applications, the
`
`system unblocks the application-specific channels so that the application may respond to the
`
`received message. After the application has performed the task associated with the received
`
`message, the application-specific channel is once again blocked to conserve battery and reduce
`
`network traffic.
`
`38.
`
`Other ZTE products similarly infringe one or more claims of the ’600 Patent.
`
`Such other products include ZTE’s Axon, ZMAX, ZPAD, and Trek devices.
`
`39.
`
`ZTE also induces the infringement by end users of its mobile devices of at least
`
`claim 7 of the ’600 Patent. ZTE promotes and advertises the use of its products, especially the
`
`products’ capability to preserve remaining battery power and avoid battery drain from
`
`background applications. The Doze functionality is enabled on ZTE’s mobile devices by default.
`
`Examples of ZTE’s promotional materials appear on the company’s website, such as
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/blade/.
`
`40.
`
`ZTE has had notice of the ’600 Patent and its infringement since at least as early
`
`as the filing of this lawsuit. Accordingly, ZTE’s continued promotion, advertisement, and
`
`encouragement of its customers to utilize the products’ capability to preserve battery life and
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`15
`
`

`

`avoid battery drain from background applications is evidence of ZTE’s specific intent to induce
`
`others to infringe the ’600 Patent. Despite having knowledge of its infringement, ZTE continues
`
`to intentionally and willfully infringe at least claim 7 of the ’600 patent.
`
`COUNT 4
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,351,254)
`
`41.
`
`ZTE infringes at least claim 1 of the ’254 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §271(a)
`
`and (b). ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States products, such as
`
`the Blade, that meet every limitation of at least claim 1.
`
`42.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’254 Patent is directed to a mobile device comprising a screen,
`
`memory, and processor configured to: (1) acquire a system wakelock in response to an application
`
`wakelock acquisition request; (2) detect an activity state of the mobile device based on a status of
`
`the display screen; (3) enter a power optimization state based on the detected activity state; (4)
`
`release the system wakelock based upon entering the power optimization state when the
`
`application that made the acquisition request is not critical to user experience, wherein the
`
`application is non-critical when the application is not identified on a whitelist; and (5) acquire the
`
`system wakelock in response to a subsequent wakelock request from another application on the
`
`mobile device when the another application making the subsequent wakelock acquisition request
`
`is identified on the whitelist.
`
`43.
`
`In addition to features described in previous paragraphs, ZTE’s products, such as
`
`its Blade, include a screen, memory, and processor. The devices also manage the use of the
`
`central processing unit (“CPU”) by software applications on the mobile device. For example,
`
`even when the Blade is sleeping or otherwise in a power saving state, certain software
`
`applications are able to use the CPU. Software applications are able to use the CPU by utilizing a
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`16
`
`

`

`wakelock or other request to the system that allows the CPU to stay on for certain purposes. For
`
`example, the alarm application or the phone functionality needs to work even when the device is
`
`sleeping or in a power saving state and accordingly requires the CPU to process certain tasks.
`
`These applications issue a request to the system to use the CPU even when the device is
`
`sleeping. The system then issues a wakelock that allows the CPU to continue working when it
`
`would otherwise be put to sleep, such as when the user is not actively using the mobile device.
`
`Some applications take advantage of these wakelock requests and use the CPU for actions that
`
`are not critical to the user experience, such as background communications when the device is
`
`not actively being used. Such misbehaving applications unnecessarily drain battery resources.
`
`The Blade manages which applications have permission to use the CPU and battery resources
`
`when the device is sleeping or in a power saving state. As an example, the Blade may acquire a
`
`system wakelock when an application, such as the alarm application, issues a wakelock request.
`
`The Blade also detects whether the device is in use by, among other things, monitoring the
`
`screen, whether the device is unplugged, and whether the device has been stationary for some
`
`time. The Blade enters Doze mode based on this monitored activity. In Doze mode, the Blade
`
`will release the system wakelock when the application that made the wakelock request does not
`
`have permission to use CPU resources during this power saving state. The Blade can issue
`
`another system wakelock in response to another wakelock request when the application making
`
`the request is identified as having the necessary permissions to utilize the CPU.
`
`44. Other ZTE products similarly infringe one or more claims of the ’254 Patent.
`
`Such other products include ZTE’s Axon, ZMAX, ZPAD, and Trek devices.
`
`45.
`
`ZTE also induces infringement by end users of its mobile devices of at least claim
`
`1 of the ’254 Patent. ZTE promotes and advertises the use of its products, especially the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`17
`
`

`

`products’ capability to preserve remaining battery and avoid battery drain from background
`
`applications. Further, the Doze functionality is enabled on ZTE’s mobile devices by default.
`
`Examples of ZTE’s promotional materials appear on the company’s website, such as
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/blade/.
`
`46.
`
`ZTE has had notice of the ’254 Patent and its infringement since at least as early
`
`as the filing of this lawsuit. Accordingly, ZTE’s continued promotion, advertisement, and
`
`encouragement of its customers to utilize the products’ capability to preserve battery life and
`
`avoid battery drain from background applications is evidence of ZTE’s specific intent to induce
`
`others to infringe the ’254 Patent. Despite having knowledge of its infringement, ZTE continues
`
`to intentionally and willfully infringe at least claim 1 of the ’254 patent.
`
`COUNT 5
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,516,127)
`
`47.
`
`ZTE infringes at least claim 10 of the ’127 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §271(a)
`
`and (b). ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States products, such as
`
`its Blade, that meet every limitation of at least claim 10.
`
`48.
`
`Claim 10 of the ’127 Patent is directed to a mobile device with a memory and
`
`processor configured to: (1) enter a power save mode based on a backlight status and sensed
`
`motion of a mobile device; (2) delay a timing of one or more triggers for multiple applications on
`
`the mobile device, wherein the timing is delayed such that the triggers execute within a window
`
`of time and wherein at least a subset of the triggers are associated with wakelocks; and (3) exit the
`
`power save mode when the backlight of the mobile device turns on or motion of the mobile device
`
`is sensed.
`
`49.
`
`In addition to features described in previous paragraphs, ZTE’s products, such as
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`18
`
`

`

`the Blade, enter a power save mode such as Doze, when the device is unplugged and stationary
`
`for some time with the screen off. Doze conserves remaining battery resources of the Blade by,
`
`among other things, deferring jobs and alarms for the software ap