IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 20-552-CFC
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`TCT MOBILE (US), INC.; TCT MOBILE
`(US) HOLDINGS, INC.; HUIZHOU TCL
`MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD.;
`and TCL COMMUNICATION, INC.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`AND JURY DEMAND
`
`(“Plaintiff” or
`International LLC
`Innovation Systems
`Plaintiff Fundamental
`“Fundamental”), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings this action against Defendants
`TCT Mobile (US), Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication
`Co. Ltd., and TCL Communication, Inc. (collectively “Defendant” or “TCL”) to prevent TCL’s
`continued infringement of Plaintiff’s patents without authorization and to recover damages
`resulting from such infringement.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business located
`at 2990 Long Prairie Road, Suite B, Flower Mound, Texas 75022.
`2.
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,239,111 (the “’111 Patent”), 8,624,550 (the “’550 Patent”), 7,834,586 (the “’586 Patent”),
`8,232,766 (the “’766 Patent”), 8,169,187 (the “’187 Patent”), and 6,936,936 (the “’936 Patent”)
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`3.
`On information and belief, Defendant TCT Mobile (US), Inc. is a Delaware
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 1 of 34
`
`

`

`corporation with a place of business at 25 Edelman Suite 200, Irvine, CA, 92618. TCT Mobile
`(US), Inc. may be served through its registered agent Corporation Service Company, 251 Little
`Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.
`4.
`On information and belief, Defendant TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc. is a
`Delaware corporation with a place of business at 25 Edelman Suite 200, Irvine, CA, 92618. TCT
`Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc. may be served through its registered agent Corporation Service
`Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.
`5.
`On information and belief, Defendant Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.
`Ltd. is a company organized and existing under the laws of China with a place of business at No.
`86 Hechang Qi Lu Xi, Zhongkai Gaoxin District, Huizhou City, Guandong Province, P.R. China.
`6.
`On information and belief, Defendant TCL Communication, Inc. is a Delaware
`corporation with a place of business at 25 Edelman Suite 200, Irvine, CA, 92618. TCL
`Communication, Inc. may be served through its registered agent Corporation Service Company,
`251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.
`7.
`On information and belief, TCL directly and/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.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`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
`subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`9.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over TCT Mobile (US), Inc., TCT Mobile
`(US) Holdings, Inc., and TCL Communication, Inc. based at least on their incorporation in the
`State of Delaware.
`10.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 2 of 34
`
`

`

`Co. Ltd. pursuant to due process and/or the Delaware Long Arm Statute, due at least to its
`substantial business in this State, including: (A) at least part of its own infringing activities
`alleged herein; and (B) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent
`conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from infringing goods offered for sale, sold, and
`imported and services provided to Delaware residents vicariously through and/or in concert with
`its subsidiaries, intermediaries, and/or agents.
`11.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) with respect to
`TCT Mobile (US), Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., and TCL Communication, Inc.
`because they are incorporated in, and therefore reside in, the State of Delaware.
`12.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 with respect to
`Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. because it is not a resident in the United States,
`and thus may be sued in any judicial district, including this one.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`13.
`The Patents-in-Suit relate to, among other things, novel techniques for using
`Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) in connection with 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
`provided for faster charging times, longer battery life, improved user experiences and a dramatic
`increase in performance and features.
`14.
`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 the inventions, 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.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 3 of 34
`
`

`

`15.
`In the early 2000s, BlackBerry sought to simplify the number of cables and
`connectors used with its mobile devices and provide its customers with an improved device for
`charging a mobile device’s battery. At the time, mobile devices in the market used either
`separate connectors for power (including battery charging) and for data, or a proprietary
`connector that could not be used with other devices. As a result, mobile device users frequently
`had to carry at least two different cables with them—and even more if they used more than one
`device.
`16.
`The disclosures of the Patents-in-Suit describe this problem in the art. For
`example, the specification of the ’111 patent explains: “[M]ost mobile devices provide a distinct
`power interface for receiving power from a power Source, for instance to recharge a battery, and
`a separate data interface for communicating. For example, many mobile devices presently use
`USB (Universal Serial Bus) interfaces for communicating and use a separate power interface,
`such as a barrel connector, for receiving power. It is desirable, however, to have a combined
`power and data interface. The mobile devices that do have combined power and data interfaces
`typically use non-standard and sometimes proprietary interfaces. Consequently, combined
`interfaces for a particular manufacturer’s mobile device may not be compatible with combined
`interfaces for mobile devices provided by other manufacturers.” ’111 Patent col. 1:35-51.
`17.
`To address the problems in the prior art, BlackBerry began investigating the use
`of USB with its mobile devices. At the time, USB was emerging as a standardized, non-
`proprietary interface used to connect computers to peripheral devices. For example, Revision 2.0
`of the USB Specification (“USB 2.0”), first published on April 27, 2000, defined connectors and
`interfaces with power and data lines that could be used to support power delivery and data
`communications between a host (e.g., a PC) and a connected device (e.g., a keyboard or mouse).
`18.
`However, USB 2.0 was not originally designed with mobile computing devices
`and battery charging in mind, and mobile devices prior to the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit
`did not use USB for charging the battery of the mobile device. Accordingly, USB 2.0 does not
`define or otherwise describe a USB charging adapter or the use of USB to charge a battery.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 4 of 34
`
`

`

`Instead, USB 2.0 defines a data and power protocol between a “USB host,” such as a desktop
`computer or laptop, and one or more “USB devices,” such as a mouse, keyboard, microphone, or
`speaker, connected to the USB host over a USB connection. According to USB 2.0, when a
`USB device is connected to a USB host, it must perform a process called “USB enumeration,”
`during which the USB host and USB device exchange certain data in order to configure the USB
`device for use with the USB host. As part of the enumeration process, the USB device is
`configured to draw up to (but no more than) 500 milliamps of current from the USB host; and if
`enumeration does not successfully complete, the USB device is limited to drawing even less
`current.
`19.
`BlackBerry realized that existing USB technology was not effective for charging
`a battery in a mobile device for multiple reasons. First, the enumeration requirement meant that
`a mobile device using USB for battery charging could only charge when connected to a USB
`host, such as a computer, that was capable of performing USB enumeration. This meant that
`mobile devices could not charge the battery from more common and more convenient sources,
`such as electrical outlets and car chargers, and could not charge at all when the battery was fully
`depleted and the device was unable to power on in order to perform USB enumeration. Second,
`designing a USB charging adapter that could perform the enumeration functionality of a USB
`host would have increased the size and the cost of the charging adapter, which was not practical.
`Third, the current limits imposed by USB 2.0 would significantly limit the charging speed of a
`mobile device, requiring hours to fully charge the battery, which was not acceptable for a mobile
`device.
`20.
`The technical problems encountered by BlackBerry are identified in the
`disclosures of the Patents-in-Suit. For example, the specification of the ’111 patent explains: “In
`accordance with the USB specification, typical USB power source devices, such as hubs and
`hosts, require that a USB device participate in a host-initiated process called enumeration in
`order to be compliant with the current USB specification in drawing power from the USB
`interface. Although a mobile device could be adapted to participate in enumeration when
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 5 of 34
`
`

`

`drawing power over the USB interface, it would be preferable in many situations, such as when a
`host would not be available, as often happens during normal use of a mobile device, to be able to
`utilize alternate power sources such as conventional AC outlets and DC car sockets that are not
`capable of participating in enumeration to supply power to the mobile device via a USB
`interface.” ’111 Patent col. 1:54-67. The specification goes on to state: “Typically when a
`mobile device 10 receives power over the USB from a USB host, it is required to draw power in
`accordance with the USB specification. The USB specification specifies a process for
`transferring energy across the USB called enumeration and limits the electrical current that can
`flow across the USB.” ’111 Patent col. 8:11-16.
`21.
`In order to overcome these technical problems associated with using USB for
`battery charging, BlackBerry invented a new charging adapter that is different from the USB
`hosts and USB hubs defined in USB 2.0. BlackBerry’s novel USB charging adapter utilized the
`same USB connector that was used by a USB host so that a mobile device could connect to the
`adapter using the same USB cable used for connecting the mobile device to a USB host. The
`novel USB charging adapter, however, utilized the USB connector in a new way that did not
`previously exist in the art. Unlike a conventional USB host, BlackBerry’s novel USB charging
`adapter included novel circuitry for providing a signal (e.g., an “identification signal”) to a
`connected mobile device. The signal provided by this novel circuitry informed the mobile
`device that it is connected to a charging adapter as opposed to a conventional USB host or hub,
`and thereby allowed the mobile device to draw a higher level of current from the adapter without
`performing USB enumeration, in order to more quickly charge the battery in the mobile device.
`In addition, BlackBerry’s novel circuitry was designed to provide a signal over the USB data
`connection that is not defined as valid in USB 2.0 (e.g., an “abnormal data condition”) so that it
`could be distinguished from data communication provided by a conventional USB host, and
`would not interfere with the conventional USB functionality of a compatible mobile device.
`BlackBerry’s novel USB charging adapter is embodied and reflected in the claims of the ’111,
`’550, and ’936 patents.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 6 of 34
`
`

`

`22.
`In addition to the novel USB charging adapter, BlackBerry also invented a novel
`mobile device that used a single USB port on the device for both data communication and battery
`charging, and that could be connected to either a conventional USB host or the novel USB
`charging adapter. The novel mobile device was designed to distinguish between a conventional
`USB host and a USB charging adapter (e.g., by detecting an “identification signal” or an
`“abnormal data condition” when connected to a novel USB charging adapter). When the mobile
`device determined it was connected to a conventional USB host, it would function in a manner
`fully compliant with USB 2.0 (e.g., by performing USB enumeration and drawing current in
`accordance with the limits set in USB 2.0). However, when the mobile device determined it was
`connected to a USB charging adapter, it would forgo enumeration and draw substantially higher
`current to charge the battery. BlackBerry’s novel mobile device is embodied and reflected in the
`claims of the ’586, ’766, and ’187 patents.
`23.
`The novelty of the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit has consistently been
`confirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The Patents-in-Suit have
`collectively been challenged in eighteen separate inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions filed by
`four different petitioners at the PTAB. Three of these petitions were voluntarily terminated prior
`to any determination by the PTAB. For the remaining fifteen petitions, the PTAB uniformly
`affirmed the novelty of BlackBerry’s inventions and the validity of the Patents-in-Suit. The
`PTAB denied institution of IPR for thirteen of the petitions, finding that the petitioners had not
`even demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable. For the
`two petitions where an IPR was instituted, the PTAB issued a final written decision upholding
`the validity of all claims.
`24.
`The value and novelty of the inventions claimed by the Patents-in-Suit has also
`been widely recognized in the industry. Over fifty companies have taken licenses to the Patents-
`in-Suit, including many of TCL’s competitors.
`TCL’s Accused Products and Infringement
`25.
`On information and belief, TCL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 7 of 34
`
`

`

`infringing mobile devices in the United States, including but not limited to the BlackBerry
`branded KeyOne, Key2, and Key2 LE, the Alcatel branded Avalon 3V, Insight, Avalon V, Onyx,
`and Joy Tab, and other models that include similar functionality (“Accused Mobile Devices”).
`On information and belief, TCL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports infringing
`charging adapters in the United States for use with the Accused Mobile Devices, including but
`not limited to model numbers CBA0058AGZC7, CBA0060AJHC1, and other models that
`include similar functionality (“Accused Charging Adapters”).
`26.
`The Accused Mobile Devices and Accused Charging Adapters are referred to
`herein as “the Accused Products.”
`27.
`The Accused 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 enumeration, such as a voltage on the
`D+ line and on the D- line of the USB communication path. The identification signal enables the
`mobile device to draw current unrestricted by a USB specification limit.
`28.
`The Accused Charging Adapters are USB charging adapters that are designed to
`provide power to a mobile device. The charging adapters include a Vbus line and a USB
`communication path. The charging adapters are configured to generate an identification signal,
`such as a voltage on a D+ line and on a D- line, that indicates to the mobile device that it is
`receiving power from a source that is not a USB host or hub. The charging adapters are able to
`supply current to a mobile device without regard to at least one associated condition specified in
`a USB specification. The charging adapters also receive power from a power socket and include
`a power converter that regulates the received power to generate a DC power output.
`TCL’s Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and Infringement
`29.
`On December 15, 2015, Fundamental sent a letter to TCL, which indicated that
`Fundamental owned the Patents-in-Suit and suggested to TCL that it should take a license.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 8 of 34
`
`

`

`Fundamental also provided TCL with claim charts demonstrating how TCL infringed the
`Patents-in-Suit at least as early as July 5, 2017. Fundamental sent additional correspondence to
`TCL on numerous occasions requesting meetings in order to discuss the terms of a license. TCL
`never responded to any of Fundamental’s correspondence, nor did TCL ever provide
`Fundamental with any basis for believing that it did not infringe the Patents-in-Suit or stop
`infringing. Fundamental’s provision of actual notice of infringement entitles Fundamental to
`past damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §287, at least as of the date that notice was provided.
`30.
`After having received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, TCL has continued to make,
`use, sell, offer for sale, and import into the United States the Accused Products. TCL’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, TCL 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.
`31.
`After having received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, TCL 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, TCL knows that the Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of
`commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. TCL’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 Charging Adapters 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.
`32.
`After having received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, TCL continued to advertise
`and distribute the Accused Products, offer technical assistance, and publish user manuals,
`specifications, promotional literature or instructions to customers, partners, and/or end users,
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`advising them to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the Patents-in-Suit.
`On information and belief, by such acts, TCL 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,
`TCL’s customers who purchase the Accused Products and operate the Accused Products in
`accordance with instructions provided by TCL, directly infringe one or more claims of the
`Patents-in-Suit. TCL provides such instructions through, for example, user guides and manuals,
`including
`but
`not
`limited
`to
`user
`guides
`and manuals
`located
`at
`https://blackberrymobile.com/support/blackberry-keyone/user-guide/;
`https://blackberrymobile.com/support/blackberry-key2-le/user-guide/;
`https://blackberrymobile.com/support/blackberry-keytwo/user-guide/;
`https://nasupport.alcatelmobile.com/hc/en-us/articles/360007033673-Alcatel-3V-User-Manual-
`English; https://nasupport.alcatelmobile.com/hc/en-us/articles/360036292853-INSIGHT-Cricket-
`Wireless-User-Manual-English-.
`33.
`On information and belief, TCL 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. 7,239,111)
`34.
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`35.
`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 A.
`36.
`The ’111 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
`Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
`37.
`The ’111 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 10 of 34
`
`

`

`owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’111 Patent, including the
`exclusive right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`38.
`The claims of the ’111 Patent are directed to a novel USB charging adapter. For
`example, claim 1 of the ’111 Patent recites a “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter for
`providing power to a mobile device through a USB port.” Among other things, the claim
`requires a novel “identification subsystem” invented by BlackBerry, which provides an
`“identification signal” that “indicate[s] to the mobile device” that it is connected to a USB
`charging adapter and “not a USB host or hub.” By detecting the identification signal via a USB
`connection, a novel mobile device according to BlackBerry’s invention can distinguish between
`a USB charging adapter and a USB host, and can forgo enumeration and draw higher current
`when connected to a USB charging adapter.
`39.
`Claim 1 also requires a USB connector on the USB adapter that is coupled to the
`identification subsystem. The claims of the ‘111 patent use a USB connector in a novel manner
`on an adapter to enable a mobile device to be coupled to the power output and identification
`signal of the USB adapter. Using a USB connector on an adapter provides advantages that were
`not known in the prior art in that it enables a mobile device to be connected to either the USB
`adapter or to a conventional USB host (such a s PC) using the same USB cable.
`40.
`The dependent claims of the ’111 Patent recite in more detail the implementations
`of specific embodiments of BlackBerry’s novel USB charging adapter. For example, claims 6
`and 7 describe how the identification subsystem in the novel USB charging adapter provides the
`identification signal to a connected mobile device, e.g., by providing “a voltage level that is
`applied to at least one data line in the USB connector” (claim 6) or “a hard-wired connection of a
`voltage level to one or more data lines in the USB connector” (claim 7).
`41.
`On information and belief, TCL has been, and currently is, directly infringing
`the ’111 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States
`the Accused Charging Adapters. On information and belief, TCL’s products infringe at least
`claims 1-3, 6-7, and 16-18 of the ’111 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 11 of 34
`
`

`

`42.
`The Accused Charging Adapters are charging adapters that are able to provide
`power to a mobile device. The products include a plug unit that can be plugged into an electrical
`socket to receive energy from the socket. The Accused Charging Adapters include a power
`converter that converts AC voltage from an electrical outlet to a 5.0v DC voltage that can be
`output from the charging adapter.
`
`
`
`43.
`The Accused Charging Adapters include an identification subsystem that is
`configured to generate an identification signal that consists of voltages on D+ and D- lines.
`These voltages indicate to a mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub.
`44.
`The Accused Charging Adapters also include a USB connector, e.g., a type A
`connector, that is coupled to the power converter through a Vbus line and to the identification
`subsystem. The USB connector is configured to couple the power output and identification
`signal to a mobile device, through a USB cable.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`
`
`
`On information and belief, TCL has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 12 of 34
`
`

`

`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 Charging Adapters in the United States, or to
`import the Accused Charging Adapters into the United States, without license or authority from
`Fundamental, with knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that TCL’s actions will induce
`others, including but not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe
`the ’111 patent. TCL induces others to infringe the ’111 Patent by encouraging and facilitating
`others to perform actions that TCL knows to be acts of infringement of the ’111 Patent with
`specific intent that those performing the acts infringe the ’111 Patent.
`46.
`On information and belief, TCL 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 TCL 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 Charging Adapters. TCL’s actions contribute to the direct infringement of the Patents-
`in-Suit by others, including customers of the Accused Charging Adapters, in violation of 35
`U.S.C. § 271(c).
`47.
`As a result of TCL’s infringement of the ’111 Patent, Fundamental has been
`damaged. Fundamental is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of TCL’s
`wrongful acts in an amount to be determined. Fundamental has complied with the requirements
`of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) at least because Fundamental provided TCL with written notice of the
`infringement as discussed above.
`48.
`In addition, TCL’s infringing acts have caused and are causing immediate and
`irreparable harm to Fundamental.
`49.
`On information and belief, TCL has had actual knowledge of its infringement of
`the ’111 Patent since at least as early as July 5, 2017. On information and belief, TCL’s
`infringement of the ’111 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and,
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 13 of 34
`
`

`

`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.
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550)
`50.
`Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`51.
`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 B.
`52.
`The ’550 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
`Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
`53.
`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
`exclusive right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
`54.
`The claims of the ’550 Patent are directed to a novel USB charging adapter that
`includes a USB VBUS line and USB communication path. For example, claim 1 of the ’550
`Patent recites an “adapter comprising: a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path.” The
`VBUS line is the pin or wire in a USB cable or connector that is used to supply power. The USB
`communication path includes the D+ and D- pins or wires in a USB cable or connector that are
`used for data communications in a conventional USB host; and are used to provide the
`identification signal in at least some embodiments of the ’550 Patent. The claims of the ‘550
`patent use the VBUS line and the D+ and D- lines in a novel manner on an adapter to provide an
`identification signal and power to a mobile device from the USB adapter. Using these lines on
`an adapter provides advantages that were not known in the prior art in that it enables a mobile
`device to be connected to either the USB adapter or to a conventional USB host (such a s PC)
`using the same USB cable.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1005
`IPR USP 8,624,550
`Page 14 of 34
`
`

`

`55.
`Claim 1 also requires that the adapter be “configured to supply current on the
`VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification.”
`This limitation refers to the novel aspect of BlackBerry’s USB charging adapter that it is
`designed to supply a higher current to a compatible mobile device after the mobile device has
`determined that it is connected to a USB charging adapter and not a conventional USB host (e.g.,
`by detecting an “identification signal” or “abnormal data condition” on the USB communication
`path).
`
`56.
`The dependent claims of the ’550 Patent recite in more detail the implementations
`of specific embodiments of BlackBerry’s novel USB charging adapter. For example, claim 3
`recites another inventive aspect of BlackBerry’s USB charging adapter, which further
`distinguishes it from conventional USB hosts defined in USB 2.0: supplying current on the
`VBUS power line without first performing USB enumeration.
`57.
`Similarly, claims 4-7 describe various specific implementations by which the
`circuitry in the novel USB charging adapter can indicate to the mobile device that the USB
`charging adapter is not a conventional USB host, thereby causing a compatible mobile device to
`draw higher current. For example, claim 4 recites that the higher current is supplied in response
`to “an abnormal data condition on [the] USB communication path”; claim 6 further provides that
`the “abnormal data condition” is provided on the “D+ line” and the “D- line” used for USB data
`communications; and claim 7 further provides that the “abnormal data condition” is a “logic high
`signal” on the D+ and D- lines. Each of the foregoing dependent claims reflect BlackBerry’s
`innovative use of circuitry in the novel USB charging adapter to provide a signal that is not
`defined as valid by the USB Specification, allowing a compatible mobile device to distinguish
`between the novel USB charging adapter and a conventional USB host without otherwise
`interfering with conventional USB functionality.
`58