IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Neo Wireless LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-0024
`
`Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Neo Wireless”) files this Original
`
`Complaint against Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (collectively
`
`“Defendants” or “Dell”) for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Plaintiff alleges,
`
`based on its own personal knowledge with respect to its own actions and based upon
`
`information and belief with respect to all others’ actions, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Dell Technologies Inc. is a
`
`company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell
`
`Technologies, Inc. may be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service
`
`Company, at 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Dell Inc. is a company duly
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
`
`1
`
`DELL 1023
`
`

`

`business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell Inc. may be served through
`
`its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin,
`
`Texas 78701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action includes a claim of patent infringement arising under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over
`
`this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dell. As indicated above, Dell’s
`
`principal place of business is located within this District. Moreover, Dell conducts
`
`business and has committed acts of patent infringement and has induced and contributed
`
`to acts of patent infringement by others in this District, the State of Texas, and elsewhere
`
`in the United States. Dell, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries, has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, designing, developing, manufacturing, importing, offering to sell, and selling
`
`products that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`Dell has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district and
`
`maintains regular and established places of business in this district, including its global
`
`corporate headquarters at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682 and as set forth
`
`above, either directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. Dell has continuous and
`
`systematic business contacts with the State of Texas. Dell, directly or through
`
`subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, contract manufacturers,
`
`and others), conducts its business extensively throughout Texas, by developing,
`
`2
`
`

`

`designing, shipping, manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale, selling, and
`
`advertising (including the provision of interactive web pages) its products and services in
`
`the State of Texas and the Western District of Texas. Dell has purposefully and
`
`voluntarily placed its infringing products and services into this District and into the
`
`stream of commerce with the intention and expectation that they will be purchased and
`
`used by consumers in this District.
`
`8.
`
`In addition to its global corporate headquarters, as indicated above, Dell
`
`owns and operates numerous locations within this District including locations at 1404
`
`Park Center Drive, Austin, Texas 78754; 701 E. Parmer Lane, Austin, Texas 78753
`
`(Bldgs PS2, PS3, wand PS3B); 12500 Tech Ridge Boulevard, Bldg PS4, Austin, Texas
`
`78753; 9715 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758; 4309 Emma Browning Avenue, Austin,
`
`Texas 78719; 9830 Colonnade Boulevard, San Antonio, Texas 78230; and 5822 Cromo
`
`Drive, El Paso, Texas 79912.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Dell, among others, designs, develops,
`
`manufactures, sells, and offers for sale infringing products in this District. For example,
`
`Dell recently published various job postings in Austin involving the implementation of
`
`LTE technology including, Senior RF Services Consultant, Open RAN Senior Expert
`
`Developer, NSX Staff Systems Engineer, and Director of Core Network Design and
`
`Optimization Services. Similarly, Dell recently published various job postings in Austin
`
`involving the implementation of 5G technology including, Communications Consultant
`
`for (5G) Telecom Systems, Network Architect, Director of Core Network Design and
`
`Optimization Services, Telco Partner Business Development Manager, Network
`
`Architect Director, Engineering Technologies, NSX Staff Systems Engineer, and Edge
`
`Product Manager, among others.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`10.
`
`On June 18, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`3
`
`

`

`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatus for Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication Systems.” A copy of
`
`the ’366 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`11.
`
`The ’366 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 13/205,579, which
`
`was assigned from the inventors to Waltical Solutions, Inc. on April 8, 2005. The
`
`application was later assigned from Waltical Solutions, Inc. to Neocific, Inc. on
`
`December 14, 2005. The now-issued ’366 patent was assigned from Neocific, Inc. to
`
`CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on
`
`January 23, 2020.
`
`12.
`
`The ’366 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`13.
`
`On June 7, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,363,066 (“the ’066 patent”), entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Flexible Use of Frequency Bands.” A copy of the ’066 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`14.
`
`The ’066 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 14/041,495, which
`
`was assigned from the inventors to Neocific, Inc. on February 2, 2012. The now-
`
`issued ’066 patent was later assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on
`
`November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`15.
`
`The ’066 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`16.
`
`On April 17, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,948,908 (“the ’908 patent”), entitled “Channel
`
`Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System.” A copy of the ’908 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C.
`
`4
`
`

`

`17.
`
`The ’908 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 14/321,615, which
`
`was filed by Neo Wireless LLC on behalf of the inventors.
`
`18.
`
`The ’908 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`19.
`
`On September 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”), entitled “Methods
`
`and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communications With Adaptive Transmission and
`
`Feedback.” A copy of the ’941 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`20.
`
`The ’941 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/082,878, which
`
`was assigned from the inventors to Waltical Solutions, Inc. on April 8, 2005. The
`
`application was later assigned from Waltical Solutions, Inc. to Neocific, Inc. on
`
`December 14, 2005. The now-issued ’941 patent was assigned from Neocific, Inc. to
`
`CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on
`
`January 23, 2020.
`
`21.
`
`The ’941 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`22.
`
`On October 15, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”), entitled “Method and
`
`System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead.” A copy of
`
`the ’450 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`23.
`
`The ’450 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/676,421, which
`
`was assigned from the inventors to Neocific, Inc. on October 2, 2007. The now-
`
`issued ’450 patent was later assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on
`
`November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`24.
`
`The ’450 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`25.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all rights, title, and interest in and to each of
`
`the ’366, ’066, ’908, ’941, and ’450 patents (the “patents-in-suit”) and possesses all rights
`
`5
`
`

`

`of recovery.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`26.
`
`Inventor Xiaodong (Alex) Li, Ph.D. founded Neocific Inc. in the early
`
`2000s to design, develop, and implement a new wireless communication system. He and
`
`his co-inventors had extensive experience with wireless communications systems,
`
`including the development of the Wi-Max standards, and a deep understanding of the
`
`flaws in existing systems at the time. The inventors saw an opportunity to create a new
`
`wireless communication system meant to address those flaws while incorporating cutting-
`
`edge Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) based technologies,
`
`and, starting in the 2004-2005 timeframe, they filed patents on the work.
`
`27.
`
`Dr. Li served as the President and Founder of Neocific. Dr. Li obtained
`
`his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, his M.S. from
`
`Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and his B.S. from Tsinghua University. Dr. Li has
`
`authored more than 30 journal and conference papers in wireless communications, video
`
`coding, and networking. He has been granted more than 100 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`28.
`
`Dr. Titus Lo, Ph.D. is a founding employee of Neocific. Dr. Lo obtained
`
`his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from McMaster University and his B.S. from the
`
`University of British Columbia. Dr. Lo has authored more than 30 technical papers in
`
`international peer-reviewed journals and presented more than 50 time at industry events.
`
`He has been granted more than 100 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`29.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the patents-in-
`
`suit, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof.
`
`30.
`
`David Loo is the CEO of Plaintiff Neo Wireless. Mr. Loo works and
`
`resides in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Mr. Loo has over a decade of experience as a licensing
`
`executive and patent attorney with a well-established track record of assisting companies,
`
`6
`
`

`

`inventors and patent holders to ensure they are fairly compensated for their inventions.
`
`31.
`
`The wireless communication industry has been developing rapidly since
`
`Bell Labs developed the First Generation of modern commercial cellular technology in
`
`1984. Multiple wireless communication technologies designated by generations emerged
`
`and brought new capacities to people all over the world. In 2008, 3GPP created and
`
`finalized the LTE standards as an upgrade to 3G. The cellular industry recognized its
`
`major benefits, and virtually all cellular device manufacturers, including Dell have
`
`embraced LTE as the next generation of commercial cellular technology and developed
`
`phones and other cellular devices to utilize the 4G LTE technology.
`
`32.
`
`Dell is a leading international technology provider headquartered in
`
`Austin, Texas. It is one of the world’s largest end-to-end technology provider, consumer
`
`electronics maker, and information hardware, software, and service solutions supplier.
`
`Dell is one of the world’s leading suppliers of personal computers. Dell’s most famous
`
`and successful PC line is the Latitude series, which is sold throughout the United States.
`
`33.
`
`Dell has been a leader in the PC industry by adopting the most advanced
`
`communication capabilities, including cellular capabilities. In 2011, Dell launched the
`
`Latitude E6420 XFR, which was compatible with the Dell Wireless 5800 LTE/4G
`
`Mobile Broadband Mini-Card (WRYPD) v.2.02.16.003.2, A00 that launched in August
`
`2011. After that, each generation of the Latitude series has been designed to have LTE or
`
`4G and 5G cellular capabilities.
`
`34.
`
`To use LTE or 4G and 5G networks, the Dell Latitude products are
`
`manufactured to comply with wireless standards, such as the 3GPP standards, that ensure
`
`compatibility of wireless devices and wireless networks.
`
`35.
`
`Dell has been on notice of the asserted patents since at least the filing
`
`and/or service of this Complaint. Dell has known that the acts complained of below
`
`constituted infringement of the asserted patents, or at least subjectively believed there
`
`was a high probability of infringement of the asserted patents but took deliberate steps to
`
`7
`
`

`

`avoid confirming the same.
`
`36.
`
`As described above, the asserted patents read on portions of the LTE or
`
`4G and 5G standards, which Dell implements in its products (“Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”), such as its Latitude laptops, such as the Latitude 3510, Latitude 5310,
`
`3190; tablets, such as the Latitude 7220EX Rugged Extreme Tablet, Latitude 7220
`
`Rugged Extreme Tablet, and other cellular-capable devices Dell makes, uses, sells, offers
`
`to sell and/or imports these Accused Instrumentalities in the United States. Accordingly,
`
`Dell directly and indirectly infringes each of the patents-in-suit.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Dell does not have any rights to the patents-in-suit.
`
`In the interest of providing detailed averments of infringement, Neo
`
`Wireless has identified below at least one claim per patent to demonstrate infringement.
`
`However, the selection of claims should not be considered limiting, and additional claims
`
`of the patents-in-suit (including method, system, and apparatus claims) that are infringed
`
`by Defendant Dell will be disclosed in compliance with the Court’s rules related to
`
`infringement contentions.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’366 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`As described above, Dell has infringed and continues to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit by implementing certain cellular standards, including particular 3GPP
`
`standards, in its products.
`
`41.
`
`Dell directly infringes the ’366 patent because it has made, used, sold,
`
`offered to sell and/or imported its respective Accused Instrumentalities in the United
`
`States. For example, each of Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities implements the portions of
`
`the 3GPP LTE standard specification that read on at least claim 1 the ’366 patent. See
`
`8
`
`

`

`Exhibit F.
`
`42.
`
`Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities meet at least one claim of the ’366
`
`patent.
`
`43.
`
`Dell makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and imports Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Neo Wireless.
`
`44.
`
`Dell therefore infringes the ’366 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`45.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’366 patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers, by, for example, encouraging its users to take
`
`advantage of LTE features within the United States and by implementing the
`
`standardized features in its cellular-capable devices.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Dell took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Dell received actual notice of its infringement of the ’366 patent at least as
`
`early as the date of service of this Complaint. Therefore, Dell was or is now aware of the
`
`‘366 patent or has willfully blinded itself as to the existence of the ’366 patent and made,
`
`used, sold, offered to sell, imported and/or encouraged the making, using, selling,
`
`offering to sell, or importing of the Accused Products despite knowing of an objectively
`
`high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’366 patent at all times
`
`relevant to this suit. Alternatively, Dell subjectively believed there was a high probability
`
`that others would infringe the ’366 patent but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming
`
`that it was actively inducing infringement by others. Dell therefore infringes the patents-
`
`in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`48.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’366 patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers by offering to sell and selling within the United States
`
`9
`
`

`

`components (that is, Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities) that constitute a material part of
`
`the inventions claimed in the ’366 patent, and that are used to practice one or more
`
`processes/methods covered by the claims of the ’366 patent. Dell’s end-user customers
`
`directly infringe the ’366 patent by, for example, using the cellular functionality of Dell’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, including establishing communication with the cellular
`
`wireless network and contending for access to resources on the network.
`
`49.
`
`In offering to sell and selling the components specified above, Dell has
`
`known these components to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the ’366 patent and that these components are not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Dell
`
`subjectively believed there was a high probability that these components to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’366 patent and that these
`
`components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`non-infringing use, but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same. Dell therefore
`
`infringes the ’366 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`50.
`
`To the extent that Dell releases any new version of Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, such instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’366 patent and
`
`infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Dell’s current infringement
`
`described above.
`
`51.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Dell’s
`
`infringement of the 366 patent.
`
`COUNT TWO: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’066 PATENT
`
`52.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`10
`
`

`

`53.
`
`As described above, Dell has infringed and continues to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit by implementing certain cellular standards, including particular 3GPP
`
`standards, in its products.
`
`54.
`
`Dell directly infringes the ’066 patent because it has made, used, sold,
`
`offered to sell and/or imported its respective Accused Instrumentalities in the United
`
`States. For example, each of Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities implements the portions of
`
`the 3GPP LTE standard specification that reads on at least claim 6 the ’066 patent. See
`
`Exhibit G.
`
`55.
`
`Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities meet at least one claim of the ’066
`
`patent.
`
`56.
`
`Dell makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and imports Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Neo Wireless.
`
`57.
`
`Dell therefore infringes the ’066 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`58.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’066 patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers, by, for example, encouraging its users to take
`
`advantage of LTE features within the United States and by implementing the
`
`standardized features in its cellular-capable devices.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Dell took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Dell received actual notice of its infringement of the ’066 patent at least as
`
`early as the date of service of Complaint. Therefore, Dell was or is now aware of the ‘066
`
`patent or has willfully blinded itself as to the existence of the ’066 patent and made, used,
`
`sold, offered to sell, imported and/or encouraged the making, using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, or importing of the Accused Products despite knowing of an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’066 Patent at all times relevant
`
`to this suit. Alternatively, Dell subjectively believed there was a high probability that
`
`others would infringe the ’066 patent but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming that it
`
`11
`
`

`

`was actively inducing infringement by others. Dell therefore infringes the ’066 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`61.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’066 patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers by offering to sell and selling within the United States
`
`components (that is, Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities) that constitute a material part of
`
`the inventions claimed in the ’066 patent, and that are used to practice one or more
`
`processes/methods covered by the claims of the ’066 patent. Dell’s end-user customers
`
`directly infringe the ’066 patent by, for example, using the cellular functionality of Dell’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, including establishing communication with the cellular
`
`wireless network and contending for access to resources on the network.
`
`62.
`
`In offering to sell and selling the components specified above, Dell has
`
`known these components to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the ’066 patent and that these components are not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Dell
`
`subjectively believed there was a high probability that these components to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’066 patent and that these
`
`components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`non-infringing use, but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same. Dell therefore
`
`infringes the ’066 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`63.
`
`To the extent that Dell releases any new version of Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, such instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’066 patent and
`
`infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Dell’s current infringement
`
`described above.
`
`64.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Dell’s
`
`infringement of the ’066 patent.
`
`12
`
`

`

`COUNT THREE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’908 PATENT
`
`65.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`66.
`
`As described above, Dell has infringed and continues to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit by implementing certain cellular standards, including particular 3GPP
`
`standards, in its products.
`
`67.
`
`Dell directly infringes the ’908 patent because it has made, used, sold,
`
`offered to sell and/or imported its respective Accused Instrumentalities in the United
`
`States. For example, each of Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities implements the portions of
`
`the 3GPP LTE standard specification that read on at least claim 11 the ’908 patent. See
`
`Exhibit H.
`
`68.
`
`Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities meet at least one claim of the ’908
`
`patent.
`
`69.
`
`Dell makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and imports Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Neo Wireless.
`
`70.
`
`Dell therefore infringes the ’908 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`71.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’908 patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers, by, for example, encouraging its users to take
`
`advantage of LTE features within the United States and by implementing the
`
`standardized features in its cellular-capable devices.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Dell took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Dell received actual notice of its infringement of the ’908 patent at least as
`
`early as the date of service of Complaint. Therefore, Dell was or is now aware of the ‘908
`
`patent or has willfully blinded itself as to the existence of the ’908 patent and made, used,
`
`sold, offered to sell, imported and/or encouraged the making, using, selling, offering to
`
`13
`
`

`

`sell, or importing of the Accused Products despite knowing of an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’908 patent at all times relevant
`
`to this suit. Alternatively, Dell subjectively believed there was a high probability that
`
`others would infringe the ’908 patent but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming that it
`
`was actively inducing infringement by others. Dell therefore infringes the patents-in-suit
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`74.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’908 patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers by offering to sell and selling within the United States
`
`components (that is, Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities) that constitute a material part of
`
`the inventions claimed in the ’908 patent, and that are used to practice one or more
`
`processes/methods covered by the claims of the ’908 patent. Dell’s end-user customers
`
`directly infringe the ’908 patent by, for example, using the cellular functionality of Dell’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, including establishing communication with the cellular
`
`wireless network and contending for access to resources on the network.
`
`75.
`
`In offering to sell and selling the components specified above, Dell has
`
`known these components to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the ’908 patent and that these components are not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Dell
`
`subjectively believed there was a high probability that these components to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’908 patent and that these
`
`components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`non-infringing use, but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same. Dell therefore
`
`infringes the ’908 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`76.
`
`To the extent that Dell releases any new version of Dell’s Accused
`
`14
`
`

`

`Instrumentalities, such instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’908 patent and
`
`infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Dell’s current infringement
`
`described above.
`
`77.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Dell’s
`
`infringement of the ’908 patent.
`
`COUNT FOUR: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’941 PATENT
`
`78.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`79.
`
`As described above, Dell has infringed and continues to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit by implementing certain cellular standards, including particular 3GPP
`
`standards, in its products.
`
`80.
`
`Dell directly infringes the ’941 patent because it has made, used, sold,
`
`offered to sell and/or imported its respective Accused Instrumentalities in the United
`
`States. For example, each of Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities implements the portions of
`
`the 3GPP LTE standard specification that read on at least claim 13 the ’941 patent. See
`
`Exhibit I.
`
`81.
`
`Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities meet at least one claim of the ’941
`
`patent.
`
`82.
`
`Dell makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and imports Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Neo Wireless.
`
`83.
`
`Dell therefore infringes the ’941 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`84.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’941 patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers, by, for example, encouraging its users to take
`
`advantage of LTE features within the United States and by implementing the
`
`standardized features in its cellular-capable devices.
`
`15
`
`

`

`85.
`
`86.
`
`Dell took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Dell received actual notice of its infringement of the ’941 patent at least as
`
`early as the date of service of Complaint. Therefore, Dell was or is now aware of the ‘941
`
`patent or has willfully blinded itself as to the existence of the ’941 patent and made, used,
`
`sold, offered to sell, imported and/or encouraged the making, using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, or importing of the Accused Products despite knowing of an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’941 patent at all times relevant
`
`to this suit. Alternatively, Dell subjectively believed there was a high probability that
`
`others would infringe the ’941 patent but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming that it
`
`was actively inducing infringement by others. Dell therefore infringes the ’941 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`87.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’941 patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers by offering to sell and selling within the United States
`
`components (that is, Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities) that constitute a material part of
`
`the inventions claimed in the ’941 patent, and that are used to practice one or more
`
`processes/methods covered by the claims of the ’941 patent. Dell’s end-user customers
`
`directly infringe the ’941 patent by, for example, using the cellular functionality of Dell’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, including establishing communication with the cellular
`
`wireless network and contending for access to resources on the network.
`
`88.
`
`In offering to sell and selling the components specified above, Dell has
`
`known these components to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the ’941 patent and that these components are not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Dell
`
`subjectively believed there was a high probability that these components to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’941 patent and that these
`
`16
`
`

`

`components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`non-infringing use, but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same. Dell therefore
`
`infringes the ’941 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`89.
`
`To the extent that Dell releases any new version of Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, such instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’941 patent and
`
`infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Dell’s current infringement
`
`described above.
`
`90.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Dell’s
`
`infringement of the 941 patent.
`
`COUNT FIVE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’450 PATENT
`
`91.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`92.
`
`As described above, Dell has infringed and continues to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit by implementing certain cellular standards, including particular 3GPP
`
`standards, in its products.
`
`93.
`
`Dell directly infringes the ’450 patent because it has made, used, sold,
`
`offered to sell and/or imported its respective Accused Instrumentalities in the United
`
`States. For example, each of Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities implements the portions of
`
`the 3GPP LTE standard specification that read on at least claim 7 the ’450 patent. See
`
`Exhibit J.
`
`94.
`
`Dell’s Accused Instrumentalities meet at least one claim of the ’450
`
`patent.
`
`95.
`
`Dell makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and imports Dell’s Accused
`
`Instrumentalities within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Neo Wireless.
`
`17
`
`

`

`96.
`
`Dell therefore infringes the ’450 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`97.
`
`Dell indirectly infringes the ’450 patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as end-user customers, by, for example, encouraging its users to take
`
`advantage of LTE features within the United States and by implementing the
`
`standardized features in its cellular-capable devices.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Dell took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Dell received actual notice of its infringement of the ’450 patent at least as
`
`early as the date of service of Complaint. Therefore, Dell was or is now aware of the ‘450
`
`patent or has willfully blinded itself as to the existence of the ’450 patent and made, used,
`
`sold, offered to sell, imported and/or encouraged the making, using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, or importing of the Accused Products despite knowing of an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’450 patent at all times relevant
`
`to this suit. Alternatively, Dell subjectively believed there was a high probability that
`
`others would infringe the ’450 patent but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming that it
`
`was actively inducing infringement by others. Dell therefore infringes the ’450 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`100. Dell indirectly infringes the ’450 patent by contributing to infringemen