IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No. _____________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff LBT IP I LLC (“LBT”) files this complaint for patent infringement against
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff LBT is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
`
`of Delaware with its principal place of business at 455 Elm Street, Suite 100, Graham, Texas
`
`76450. LBT is the owner by assignment of the following U.S. patents (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”):
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774, titled “Apparatus and Method for Adjusting Refresh
`Rate of Location Coordinates of a Tracking Device” (the “’774 Patent”) (a copy
`of which is attached as Exhibit A);
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 8,542,113, titled “Apparatus and Method for Determining
`Location and Tracking Coordinates of a Tracking Device” (the “’113 Patent”) (a
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit B);
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 8,102,256, titled “Apparatus and Method for Determining
`Location and Tracking Coordinates of a Tracking Device” (the “’256 Patent”) (a
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit C);
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618, titled “Apparatus and Method for Determining
`Location and Tracking Coordinates of a Tracking Device” (the “’618 Patent”) (a
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit D); and
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`e. U.S. Patent No. 8,421,619, titled “Apparatus and Method for Determining
`Location and Tracking Coordinates of a Tracking Device” (the “’619 Patent”) (a
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit E).
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Apple is a California corporation with a
`
`2.
`
`regular and established place of business at 125 Christiana Mall, Newark, DE 19702. Apple may
`
`be served with process through its registered agent for service of process in Delaware, The
`
`Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE
`
`19801.
`
`3.
`
`Apple directly and/or indirectly makes, imports, distributes, markets, sells and/or
`
`offers to sell throughout the United States, including in this judicial district, products and/or
`
`services (“the Accused Products”) that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents as
`
`described below. The Accused Products include all Apple devices, including iPhones and iPads,
`
`that have a low power mode, core location feature and/or facedown detection mode as more full
`
`described below.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement, arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple because it has substantial,
`
`continuing, and ongoing contacts with this judicial district, and sells, distributes, and/or offers to
`
`sell into this judicial district the Accused Products through the Apple Store in Newark, DE,
`
`through the apple.com website and through third-party vendors.
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`2
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(c) and § 1400(b) because Apple transacts business in this judicial district
`
`and because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`8.
`
`Each of the Asserted Patents generally claims improvements in battery
`
`conservation of portable electronic devices. Filed between 2008 and 2012, they were originally
`
`assigned to Location Based Technologies, Inc., who commercialized the claimed technology in
`
`its PocketFinder GPS devices.
`
`9.
`
`Battery conservation has become a critical aspect of portable electronic devices,
`
`with many consumers rating it as a high priority in purchasing decisions. According to a recent
`
`Consumer Reports article, “[t]o some smartphone users, battery life is the single most important
`
`factor in choosing a device.” See https://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/smartphones-
`
`with-the-best-battery-life/, accessed on May 31, 2019 (emphasis added).
`
`10.
`
`The Asserted Patents improve battery life through systems and methods that
`
`monitor various signals and inputs received by the portable electronic device and using those
`
`signals and inputs to control battery consumption. Each of the claimed systems and methods
`
`improve the operation of computer systems in the context of portable electronic devices and
`
`represent unconventional uses of technology as of the Asserted Patents’ respective filing dates.
`
`See, for example, Ex. A at col. 2, l. 46 – col. 3, l. 51; Ex. B at col. 2, l, 45 – col. 3, l. 21; Ex. C at
`
`col. 2, l. 40 – col. 3, l. 15; Ex. D at col. 2, l. 44 – col. 3, l. 20; Ex. E at col. 2, l. 44 – col. 3, l. 20
`
`(describing inventive aspects of the various patents and their improvements over the prior art).
`
`11.
`
`As a result of the improvements claimed by the Asserted Patents, the battery life
`
`for Apple’s Accused Products has been extended to the point that Apple’s iPhone home page
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`3
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`advertising its newest model, the iPhone XR, mentions only one feature: “The longest battery life
`
`ever in an iPhone.” See https://www.apple.com/iphone/, accessed on May 31, 2019.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,497,774
`
`12.
`
`LBT re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in
`
`paragraphs 1-11 of this Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Apple has infringed and is continuing to infringe, literally or through the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, directly, jointly, or indirectly, contributorily and/or through the inducement of
`
`others, one or more claims of the ’774 Patent, by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United
`
`States its Accused Products, constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c) and/or
`
`(g).
`
`14.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement includes using the system of at least claims 1, 4, 5, 8,
`
`13, and 15 of the ’774 Patent. Specifically, Apple’s direct infringement includes making, using,
`
`selling, offering to sell and/or importing a system by which it monitors and adjusts battery
`
`consumption in the manner claimed in the above-identified claims.
`
`15.
`
`For example, the Accused Products include a “low power mode” that reduces or
`
`stops certain background activity, including background activity related to transceiver circuitry
`
`and/or processor circuitry associated with the Accused Products’ GPS functionality, in order to
`
`conserve battery life.
`
`16.
`
`As a result of the activities described above, Apple is liable for direct
`
`infringement of the above-identified claims of the ’774 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`4
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`17.
`
`To the extent any factfinder concludes that Apple does not literally satisfy any
`
`element of the claims of the ’774 Patent, those elements are met under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents.
`
`18.
`
`Alternatively and in addition to its liability for direct infringement of the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’774 Patent, Apple is also liable for indirectly infringing the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’774 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by
`
`inducing direct infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and by contributing to direct
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`19.
`
`Apple has been aware of the ’774 Patent and the infringing nature of its Accused
`
`Products since June 24, 2019 when LBT sent a letter to Apple giving it actual notice of the
`
`infringement.
`
`20.
`
`The direct infringement induced or contributed to by Apple includes at least the
`
`use of the Accused Products by Apple’s customers.
`
`21.
`
`Apple encourages continued direct infringement of the above-identified claims of
`
`the ’774 Patent by at least providing on its website and in the Accused Products themselves
`
`instructions for conducting the directly infringing use.
`
`22.
`
`Apple induces continued infringement by at least encouraging and instructing its
`
`customers to provide some or all of the claimed elements, including instructing them on the use
`
`of the low power mode, with the knowledge that that such use constitutes infringement of the
`
`’774 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Apple contributes to direct infringement of the asserted claims of the ’774 Patent
`
`by providing its customers with the necessary software and instructions to operate the Accused
`
`Products, including instructions related to the low power mode. The low power mode is not a
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`5
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. It is specifically designed
`
`to work with the Accused Products and its only purpose is to operate in a manner that directly
`
`infringes the asserted claims of the ’774 Patent.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,542,113
`
`24.
`
`LBT re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in
`
`paragraphs 1-23 of this Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`Apple has infringed and is continuing to infringe, literally or through the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, directly, jointly, or indirectly, contributorily and/or through the inducement of
`
`others, one or more claims of the ’113 Patent, by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United
`
`States its Accused Products, constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c) and/or
`
`(g).
`
`26.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement includes using the methods and systems of at least
`
`claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-18 of the ’113 Patent. Specifically, Apple’s direct infringement includes
`
`making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing Accused Products that adjust the power
`
`level of location tracking circuitry based on the strength of certain location-related signals in the
`
`manner claimed in the above-identified claims.
`
`27.
`
`For example, the Accused Products include a “core location” feature that reduces
`
`or stops certain background activity, including background activity related to transceiver
`
`circuitry and/or processor circuitry associated with the Accused Products’ GPS functionality, in
`
`order to conserve battery life.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of the activities described above, Apple is liable for direct
`
`infringement of the above-identified claims of the ’113 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`6
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`29.
`
`To the extent any factfinder concludes that Apple does not literally satisfy any
`
`element of the claims of the ’113 Patent, those elements are met under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents.
`
`30.
`
`Alternatively and in addition to its liability for direct infringement of the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’113 Patent, Apple is also liable for indirectly infringing the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’113 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by
`
`inducing direct infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and by contributing to direct
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`31.
`
`Apple has been aware of the ’113 Patent and the infringing nature of its Accused
`
`Products since June 24, 2019 when LBT sent a letter to Apple giving it actual notice of the
`
`infringement.
`
`32.
`
`The direct infringement induced or contributed to by Apple includes at least the
`
`use of the Accused Products by Apple’s customers.
`
`33.
`
`Apple encourages continued direct infringement of the above-identified claims of
`
`the ’113 Patent by at least providing on its website and in the Accused Products themselves
`
`instructions for conducting the directly infringing use.
`
`34.
`
`Apple induces continued infringement by at least encouraging and instructing its
`
`customers to perform some or all of the claimed steps, including instructing them on the use of
`
`the low power mode, with the knowledge that that such use constitutes infringement of the ’113
`
`Patent.
`
`35.
`
`Apple contributes to direct infringement of the asserted claims of the ’113 Patent
`
`by providing its customers with the necessary software and instructions to operate the Accused
`
`Products, including instructions related to the core location functionality. The core location
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`7
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`functionality is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. It is
`
`specifically designed to work with the Accused Products and its only purpose is to operate in a
`
`manner that directly infringes the asserted claims of the ’113 Patent.
`
`COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,256
`
`36.
`
`LBT re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in
`
`paragraphs 1-35 of this Complaint.
`
`37.
`
`Apple has infringed and is continuing to infringe, literally or through the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, directly, jointly, or indirectly, contributorily and/or through the inducement of
`
`others, one or more claims of the ’256 Patent, by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United
`
`States its Accused Products, constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c) and/or
`
`(g).
`
`38.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement includes using the systems of claim 10 of the ’256
`
`Patent. Specifically, Apple’s direct infringement includes making, using, selling, offering to sell
`
`and/or importing a system by which it monitors and adjusts battery consumption in the manner
`
`claimed in the above-identified claim.
`
`39.
`
`For example, the Accused Products include a “facedown detection mode” that
`
`uses an accelerometer to generate displacement vectors that are used to reduce or stop certain
`
`background activity, including background activity associated with the Accused Products’ GPS
`
`functionality, in order to conserve battery life.
`
`40.
`
`As a result of the activities described above, Apple is liable for direct
`
`infringement of the above-identified claim of the ’256 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`8
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`41.
`
`To the extent any factfinder concludes that Apple does not literally satisfy any
`
`element of the asserted claim of the ’256 Patent, those elements are met under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents.
`
`42.
`
`Alternatively and in addition to its liability for direct infringement of the above-
`
`identified claim of the ’256 Patent, Apple is also liable for indirectly infringing the above-
`
`identified claim of the ’256 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by
`
`inducing direct infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and by contributing to direct
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`43.
`
`Apple has been aware of the ’256 Patent and the infringing nature of its Accused
`
`Products since June 24, 2019 when LBT sent a letter to Apple giving it actual notice of the
`
`infringement.
`
`44.
`
`The direct infringement induced or contributed to by Apple includes at least the
`
`use of the Accused Products by Apple’s customers.
`
`45.
`
`Apple encourages continued direct infringement of the above-identified claim of
`
`the ’256 Patent by at least providing on its website and in the Accused Products themselves
`
`instructions for conducting the directly infringing use.
`
`46.
`
`Apple induces continued infringement by at least encouraging and instructing its
`
`customers to meet some or all of the claimed elements, including instructing them on the use of
`
`the facedown detection mode, with the knowledge that that such use constitutes infringement of
`
`the ’256 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`Apple contributes to direct infringement of the asserted claim of the ’256 Patent
`
`by providing its customers with the necessary software and instructions to operate the Accused
`
`Products, including instructions related to the facedown detection mode. The facedown detection
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`9
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`mode is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. It is
`
`specifically designed to work with the Accused Products and its only purpose is to operate in a
`
`manner that directly infringes the asserted claim of the ’256 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,421,618
`
`48.
`
`LBT re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in
`
`paragraphs 1-47 of this Complaint.
`
`49.
`
`Apple has infringed and is continuing to infringe, literally or through the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, directly, jointly, or indirectly, contributorily and/or through the inducement of
`
`others, one or more claims of the ’618 Patent, by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United
`
`States its Accused Products, constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c) and/or
`
`(g).
`
`50.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement includes using the systems and methods of claims 1,
`
`9-16, and 19-24 of the ’618 Patent. Specifically, Apple’s direct infringement includes making,
`
`using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing devices that monitor and adjust battery
`
`consumption in the manner claimed in the above-identified claim.
`
`51.
`
`For example, the Accused Products include a facedown detection mode that uses
`
`an accelerometer to generate displacement vectors that are used to reduce or stop certain
`
`background activity, including background activity related to transceiver circuitry and/or
`
`processor circuitry associated with the Accused Products’ GPS functionality, in order to
`
`conserve battery life.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of the activities described above, Apple is liable for direct
`
`infringement of the above-identified claims of the ’618 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`10
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`53.
`
`To the extent any factfinder concludes that Apple does not literally satisfy any
`
`element of the claims of the ’618 Patent, those elements are met under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents.
`
`54.
`
`Alternatively and in addition to its liability for direct infringement of the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’618 Patent, Apple is also liable for indirectly infringing the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’618 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by
`
`inducing direct infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and by contributing to direct
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`55.
`
`Apple has been aware of the ’618 Patent and the infringing nature of its Accused
`
`Products since June 24, 2019 when LBT sent a letter to Apple giving it actual notice of the
`
`infringement.
`
`56.
`
`The direct infringement induced or contributed to by Apple includes at least the
`
`use of the Accused Products by Apple’s customers.
`
`57.
`
`Apple encourages continued direct infringement of the above-identified claims of
`
`the ’618 Patent by at least providing on its website and in the Accused Products themselves
`
`instructions for conducting the directly infringing use.
`
`58.
`
`Apple induces continued infringement by at least encouraging and instructing its
`
`customers to perform some or all of the claimed steps, including instructing them on the use of
`
`the facedown detection mode, with the knowledge that that such use constitutes infringement of
`
`the ’618 Patent.
`
`59.
`
`Apple contributes to direct infringement of the asserted claims of the ’618 Patent
`
`by providing its customers with the necessary software and instructions to operate the Accused
`
`Products, including instructions related to the facedown detection mode. The facedown detection
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`11
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`mode is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. It is
`
`specifically designed to work with the Accused Products and its only purpose is to operate in a
`
`manner that directly infringes the asserted claims of the ’618 Patent.
`
`COUNT V – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,421,619
`
`60.
`
`LBT re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in
`
`paragraphs 1-59 of this Complaint.
`
`61.
`
`Apple has infringed and is continuing to infringe, literally or through the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, directly, jointly, or indirectly, contributorily and/or through the inducement of
`
`others, one or more claims of the ’619 Patent, by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United
`
`States its Accused Products, constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c) and/or
`
`(g).
`
`62.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement includes using the systems and methods of claims 1,
`
`3, 5-7, 11, 12, and 14-17 of the ’619 Patent. Specifically, Apple’s direct infringement includes
`
`making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing devices that monitor and adjust battery
`
`consumption in the manner claimed in the above-identified claims.
`
`63.
`
`For example, the Accused Products include a facedown detection mode that uses
`
`an accelerometer to generate displacement vectors that are used to reduce or stop certain
`
`background activity, including background activity related to transceiver circuitry and/or
`
`processor circuitry associated with the Accused Products’ GPS functionality, in order to
`
`conserve battery life.
`
`64.
`
`As a result of the activities described above, Apple is liable for direct
`
`infringement of the above-identified claims of the ’619 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`12
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`65.
`
`To the extent any factfinder concludes that Apple does not literally satisfy any
`
`element of the claims of the ’619 Patent, those elements are met under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents.
`
`66.
`
`Alternatively and in addition to its liability for direct infringement of the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’619 Patent, Apple is also liable for indirectly infringing the above-
`
`identified claims of the ’619 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by
`
`inducing direct infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and by contributing to direct
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`67.
`
`Apple has been aware of the ’619 Patent and the infringing nature of its Accused
`
`Products since June 24, 2019 when LBT sent a letter to Apple giving it actual notice of the
`
`infringement.
`
`68.
`
`The direct infringement induced or contributed to by Apple includes at least the
`
`use of the Accused Products by Apple’s customers.
`
`69.
`
`Apple encourages continued direct infringement of the above-identified claims of
`
`the ’619 Patent by at least providing on its website and in the Accused Products themselves
`
`instructions for conducting the directly infringing use.
`
`70.
`
`Apple induces continued infringement by at least encouraging and instructing its
`
`customers to perform some or all of the claimed steps, including instructing them on the use of
`
`the facedown detection mode, with the knowledge that that such use constitutes infringement of
`
`the ’619 Patent.
`
`71.
`
`Apple contributes to direct infringement of the asserted claims of the ’619 Patent
`
`by providing its customers with the necessary software and instructions to operate the Accused
`
`Products, including instructions related to the low power mode. The facedown detection mode is
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`13
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. It is specifically
`
`designed to work with the Accused Products and its only purpose is to operate in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the asserted claims of the ’619 Patent.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`72.
`
`Apple’s acts of infringement have caused damage to LBT and LBT is entitled to
`
`recover from Apple the damages it has sustained as a result of Apple’s wrongful acts in an
`
`amount subject to proof at trial. Apple’s infringement of LBT’s exclusive rights under the
`
`Asserted Patents will continue to damage LBT, causing irreparable harm for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Apple’s ongoing infringement is willful
`
`and deliberate, as Apple became aware of the infringing nature of its Accused Products prior to
`
`the filing of this Complaint, entitling LBT to increased damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`for post-complaint infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, LBT prays that it has judgment against Defendant Apple Inc. for the
`
`following:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Adjudging that Defendant Apple Inc. has infringed the Asserted Patents;
`
`Permanently enjoining and restraining Defendant Apple Inc. and its agents,
`
`servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, and subsidiaries, and those in association, active
`
`concert or participation with any of them, from further acts of infringement, contributory
`
`infringement or inducement of infringement of any asserted claim of the Asserted Patents;
`
`(3)
`
`A judicial decree that Defendant Apple Inc. pay an ongoing royalty in an amount
`
`to be determined for continued infringement after the date of judgment;
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`14
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`(4)
`
`Awarding damages to LBT, together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest;
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`expenses; and
`
`Awarding increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`Finding this action constitutes an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Awarding LBT all of its costs in this action, including attorneys’ fees and
`
`(8)
`
`Awarding such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which LBT is justly
`
`entitled.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`LBT hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2019
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Brian S. Seal
`Thomas G. Southard
`BUTZEL LONG
`1909 K. Street N.W. Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 454-2800
`seal@butzel.com
`southard@butzel.com
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
`/s/ Karen L. Pascale
`
`
`
`Karen L. Pascale (#2903) [kpascale@ycst.com]
`Robert M. Vrana (#5666) [rvrana@ycst.com]
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff LBT IP I LLC
`
` 01:24673101.1
`
`15
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1067 Page 15
`
`