Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-181
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BILLJCO, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo” or “Plaintiff”), by its undersigned counsel, for its
`Complaint against defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco” or “Defendant”).
`I.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §271, based on Cisco’s unauthorized and willful infringing
`
`manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of methods and products
`
`incorporating BillJCo’s patented inventions.
`
`2.
`
`BillJCo is owner of all right, title, and interest in and to multiple United States
`
`patents and patent applications including United States Patent Nos. 8,761,804 (the ‘804 Patent);
`
`10,292,011 (the ‘011 Patent); 10,477,994 (the ‘994 Patent) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`Cisco manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or distributes
`
`products and services which directly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. The Patents-in-Suit represent
`
`BillJCo.’s significant investment into the Bluetooth Low Energy (“BLE”) beacon technology
`
`space.
`
`II.
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 1704 Katherine Court, Flower Mound, TX 75022. Bill Johnson is a
`
`member of BillJCo and is the inventor of the Patents-in-Suit and related patents in the patent
`
`portfolio.
`
`5.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134. Cisco may be served through its
`
`registered agent for service in Texas, Prentice Hall Corporation System, 211 East 7th Street,
`
`Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
`
`III.
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement, which arises under the Patent Laws of
`
`the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 282, 284, and 285. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Cisco because it has committed acts
`
`giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district. Cisco also regularly does
`
`business or solicits business in this District and in Texas, engages in other persistent course of
`
`conduct, derives substantial revenue from products and/or services provided in this District and
`
`in Texas, has purposefully established substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with this
`
`District, and should reasonably expect to be sued in a court in this District.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`8.
`
`For example, Cisco has a regular and established place of business in the State of
`
`Texas and in this District, including office spaces located at 2250, 2300, and 2400 East President
`
`George Bush Turnpike, Richardson, Texas 75082. Cisco also conducts business with customers
`
`residing in this District, and offers support service to customers in this District and Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Cisco has committed acts of patent infringement in this District and elsewhere in
`
`Texas.
`
`10.
`
`Cisco continues to grow its presence in this District, further cementing its ties to
`
`this District. Cisco operates a website and various advertising campaigns that solicit sales of the
`
`infringing products by consumers in the District and in Texas. Cisco has entered into
`
`partnerships with numerous resellers and distributors to sell and offer for sale the Accused
`
`Products to consumers in this District, both online and in stores, and offers support services to
`
`customers in this District.
`
`11.
`
`Cisco is registered to do business in Texas and maintains an agent authorized to
`
`receive service of process within Texas. Given these contacts, the Court’s exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Cisco will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and
`
`1400(b) because Cisco has an established place of business in this District, including that Cisco
`
`maintains office locations in this District at 2250, 2300, and 2400 East President George Bush
`
`Turnpike, Richardson, Texas 75082, has committed acts within this District giving rise to this
`
`action and resulting in the derivation of substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`customers in Texas, and continues to conduct business in this District, including one or more acts
`
`of selling, using, importing, and/or offering for sale infringing goods and/or performing support
`
`service thereof to Cisco’s customers in this District.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`13.
`
`Venue is also convenient as BillJCo is a registered Texas Limited Liability
`
`Company located in Denton County and resides within this District. Similarly, BillJCo member
`
`and inventor of the Patents-in-Suit, Mr. Johnson, lives and resides in Denton County within this
`
`District. As such, various evidence and sources of proof relating to the Patents-in-Suit and this
`
`case also are located in and reside in this District and Texas.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`BillJCo’s Technology and Patents-in-Suit
`
`14.
`
`Beacon technology generally relates to a class of BLE hardware transmitters that
`
`broadcast, among other things, their identifier to nearby electronic devices where different
`
`information can be received, processed, analyzed, and ultimately presented to a user to, for
`
`example, enhance a user’s or customer’s experience.
`
`15.
`
`The BillJCo patent portfolio includes thirty-three (33) issued and enforceable
`
`United States patents (“the Patent Portfolio”) directed to the beacon technology ecosystem which
`
`have resulted from the innovation, ingenuity, and work of BillJCo member and inventor William
`
`J. Johnson. The Patent Portfolio claims an earliest priority date of March 14, 2008.
`
`16.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are part of the Patent Portfolio and relate to specific and
`
`particularized inventions for, and associated with, this beacon technology and the related
`
`protocols and specifications which facilitate and enable aspects of the beacon technology
`
`ecosystem including devices capable of implementing beacon standards and specifications,
`
`manufacturers of beacon transmitting devices, application developers, and beacon deployers. In
`
`particular, the Patents-in-Suit also teach and disclose – among other things – systems and
`
`methods for broadcasting and beaconing related identifiers, applications, and location
`
`information for use within the beacon ecosystem.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`17.
`
`On June 24, 2014, the ‘804 Patent entitled “System and Method for Location
`
`Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed Locational Applications” was duly and legally
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy of the ‘804
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`18.
`
`On May 14, 2019, the ‘011 Patent entitled “System and Method for Location
`
`Based Exchange Network” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy of the ‘011 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`19.
`
`On November 19, 2019, the ‘994 Patent entitled “System and Method for
`
`Location Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed Locational Applications” was duly
`
`and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy
`
`of the ‘994 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are valid and enforceable.
`
`As of the priority date, the inventions as claimed in the Patents-in-Suit were
`
`novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine.
`
`22.
`
`BillJCo, LLC is the assignee of and owns all right, title, and interests in the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, including the right to receive a reasonable royalty, and recovery of any and all
`
`other damages for all past and future infringement thereof.
`
`Cisco’s Infringing Instrumentalities
`
`23.
`
`Cisco makes, imports, uses, offers for sale, and sells in the United States devices
`
`that conform, implement, and infringe the Patents-in-Suit. This includes devices that use BLE to
`
`broadcast data packets, in compliance with beacon standards and specifications, to nearby
`
`wireless devices, such as smartphones and tablets, including at least: CiscoWave 2 Access Points
`
`including Aironet 1542/1800/1810/1815//1830/1850/2800/ 3800/4800 series; Cisco Catalyst
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`9100/9800 access point series; Cisco USB BLE Beacon devices including AIR-BLE-USB-10
`
`and AIR-BLE-USB-50; and Cisco Beacon Point Module including AIR-RM-VBLE2-K9
`
`(collectively, the “Accused Infringing Instrumentalities”).
`
`24.
`
`The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities are used to create a communications
`
`system where beacons transmit a series of messages that include data fields arranged in
`
`accordance with the BLE protocol and another device receives such a message and is capable of
`
`receiving data, including location data, contained in the inquiry message.
`
`25.
`
`In particular, the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities implement certain features
`
`of different beacon specifications and protocols including Apple, Inc.’s iBeacon standard.
`
`26.
`
`For example, the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities use a standardized
`
`technology data packet consisting of at least the following pieces of information: proximity
`
`universally unique identifier (UUID), Major, Minor.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Cisco has been aware that it infringes the Patents-in-Suit since at least the filing of
`
`this lawsuit, and Cisco has failed to cease its infringing activities.
`
`28.
`
`Cisco has infringed, and continues to infringe, claims of the Patents-In-Suit in the
`
`United States by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`29.
`
`Cisco induces infringement by others of one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) in aiding, instructing, promoting, encouraging or otherwise
`
`acting with the intent to cause other parties including customers, developers, and other third-
`
`parties to use its Accused Infringing Instrumentalities. Cisco is aware of the Patents-in-Suit, at
`
`least as of the filing of this lawsuit, and knows or should have known that the inducing acts
`
`described herein constitute infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`30.
`
`Cisco takes specific steps to actively induce others—such as, for example
`
`customers, application developers, and third-party manufacturers—to access, use, and develop
`
`programs and applications for the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities and intentionally
`
`instructs infringing use through training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user
`
`guides, such as those located at:
`
`https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/9800/16-12/config-
`
`guide/b_wl_16_12_cg/ble-beacon.html;
`
`https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/cmx_cloud/vBLE_HIG/b_ble_hig/b_ble_hig_ch
`
`apter_01.html;
`
`https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/cmx_cloud/vBLE_HIG/b_ble2_hig/b_ble2_hig_
`
`chapter_01.html.
`
`31.
`
`Cisco has also infringed, and continues to infringe the Patents-In-Suit by offering
`
`to commercially distribute, commercially distributing, or importing Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities which are used in practicing the processes, or using the systems of the Patents-
`
`In-Suit, and constitute a material part of the invention. Cisco knows portions of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit, not a staple article, and not a commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`substantially noninfringing use. Cisco is therefore liable for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §271(c).
`
`32.
`
`Cisco undertook and continues its infringing actions despite that it knew and/or
`
`should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk that its activities
`
`infringed the Patents-in-Suit, which were duly issued by the USPTO, and are presumed valid.
`
`For example, since at least the filing of this action, Cisco has been aware of the unjustifiably
`
`high risk that its actions constituted and continue to constitute infringement of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, and that the Patents-in-Suit are valid. On information and belief, Cisco could not
`
`reasonably, subjectively believe that its actions do not constitute infringement of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, and it could not reasonably, subjectively believe that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid.
`
`Despite this knowledge and subjective belief, and the unjustifiably high risk that its actions
`
`constitute infringement, Cisco has continued its infringing activities. As such, Cisco willfully
`
`infringes the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘804 PATENT
`
`BillJCo incorporates all previous paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘804 Patent,
`
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘804 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`35.
`
`The ‘804 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-conventional
`
`and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and improved upon
`
`what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`36.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit D),
`
`Cisco without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘804 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘804 Patent. Cisco
`
`is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘804 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`37.
`
`Cisco actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘804 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘804 Patent. Cisco aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Cisco knew of the ‘804 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘804 Patent, and Cisco is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘804 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`38.
`
`Cisco is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘804
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`namely the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, used to infringe at least one claim of the ‘804
`
`Patent. The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. Cisco
`
`knew that the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities were especially made for use in an infringing
`
`manner prior to the filing of this lawsuit. For at least the reasons set forth above, Cisco
`
`contributes to the infringement of the ‘804 Patent by others.
`
`39.
`
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 287 is determined to be applicable, its requirements
`
`have been satisfied with respect to the ‘804 Patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`40.
`
`BillJCo has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Cisco alleged
`
`above. Thus, Cisco is liable to BillJCo in an amount that compensates it for such infringement,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty and in an amount yet to be determined.
`
`BillJCo is also entitled to receive such other and further relief, as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`41.
`
`BillJCo is further informed, and on this basis alleges, that Cisco’s infringement of
`
`the ‘804 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an
`
`exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for up to three times the actual
`
`damages awarded and attorney’s fees to BillJCo pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. As noted
`
`above, Cisco has had knowledge of the ‘804 Patent or at least was willfully blind to its
`
`infringement, as well as related patents and patent applications, and its infringement thereof, and
`
`yet has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for BillJCo patent rights. Thus, Cisco’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful.
`
`42.
`
`Cisco’s use of the ‘804 Patent is not licensed or authorized by BillJCo in any way.
`
`BillJCo has not licensed the ‘804 Patent to Cisco.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘011 PATENT
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`BillJCo incorporates all previous paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘011 Patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘011 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`45.
`
`The ‘011 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`conventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and
`
`improved upon what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`46.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit E),
`
`Cisco without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘011 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘011 Patent. Cisco
`
`is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘011 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`47.
`
`Cisco actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘011 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘011 Patent. Cisco aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Cisco knew of the ‘011 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘011 Patent, and Cisco is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘011 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`48.
`
`Cisco is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘011
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`namely the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, used to infringe at least one claim of the ‘011
`
`Patent. The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. Cisco
`
`knew that the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities were especially made for use in an infringing
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`manner prior to the filing of this lawsuit. For at least the reasons set forth above, Cisco
`
`contributes to the infringement of the ‘011 Patent by others.
`
`49.
`
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 287 is determined to be applicable, its requirements
`
`have been satisfied with respect to the ’011 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`BillJCo has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Cisco alleged
`
`above. Thus, Cisco is liable to BillJCo in an amount that compensates it for such infringement,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty and in an amount yet to be determined.
`
`BillJCo is also entitled to receive such other and further relief, as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`51.
`
`BillJCo is further informed, and on this basis alleges, that Cisco’s infringement of
`
`the ‘011 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an
`
`exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for up to three times the actual
`
`damages awarded and attorney’s fees to BillJCo pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. As noted
`
`above, Cisco has had knowledge of the ‘011 Patent or at least was willfully blind to its
`
`infringement, as well as related patents and patent applications, and its infringement thereof, and
`
`yet has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for BillJCo patent rights. Thus, Cisco’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful.
`
`52.
`
`Cisco’s use of the ‘011 Patent is not licensed or authorized by BillJCo in any way.
`
`BillJCo has not licensed the ‘011 Patent to Cisco.
`
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘994 PATENT
`
`53.
`
`BillJCo incorporates all previous paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`54.
`
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘994 Patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘994 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`55.
`
`The ‘994 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-conventional
`
`and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and improved upon
`
`what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`56.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit F),
`
`Cisco without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘994 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘994 Patent. Cisco
`
`is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘994 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`57.
`
`Cisco actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘994 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘994 Patent. Cisco aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Cisco knew of the ‘994 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘994 Patent, and Cisco is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘994 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`58.
`
`Cisco is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘994
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`namely the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, used to infringe at least one claim of the ‘994
`
`Patent. The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. Cisco
`
`knew that the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities were especially made for use in an infringing
`
`manner prior to the filing of this lawsuit. For at least the reasons set forth above, Cisco
`
`contributes to the infringement of the ‘994 Patent by others.
`
`59.
`
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 287 is determined to be applicable, its requirements
`
`have been satisfied with respect to the ’994 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`BillJCo has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Cisco alleged
`
`above. Thus, Cisco is liable to BillJCo in an amount that compensates it for such infringement,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty and in an amount yet to be determined.
`
`BillJCo is also entitled to receive such other and further relief, as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`61.
`
`BillJCo is further informed, and on this basis alleges, that Cisco’s infringement of
`
`the ‘994 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an
`
`exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for up to three times the actual
`
`damages awarded and attorney’s fees to BillJCo pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. As noted
`
`above, Cisco has had knowledge of the ‘994 Patent or at least was willfully blind to its
`
`infringement, as well as related patents and patent applications, and its infringement thereof, and
`
`yet has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for BillJCo patent rights. Thus, Cisco’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful.
`
`62.
`
`Cisco’s use of the ‘994 Patent is not licensed or authorized by BillJCo in any way.
`
`BillJCo has not licensed the ‘994 Patent to Cisco.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`V.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), BillJCo hereby demands a trial by jury
`
`of any and all issues triable of right before a jury.
`
`VI.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff BillJCo respectfully requests that the Court:
`A.
`Enter a judgment that Cisco has infringed one or more claims of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit;
`
`B.
`Enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff BillJCo a reasonably royalty and all other
`damages adequate to compensate it for Cisco’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, including all
`pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law;
`
`C.
`
`Declare that the Patents-in-Suit are valid and enforceable;
`
`D.
`Order Cisco to pay damages adequate to compensate BillJCo for Cisco’s
`infringement, together with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`E.
`Order Cisco to play supplemental damages to BillJCo, including interest, with an
`accounting, as needed;
`
`F.
`
`Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`G.
`Declare that Cisco’s infringement is willful and that the damages awarded to
`BillJCo should be enhanced up to three times the actual damages awarded;
`
`H.
`Award Plaintiff BillJCo its costs, disbursements, expert witness fees, and
`attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecution this action, with interest; and
`
`I.
`Award Plaintiff BillJCo other such and further relief, including equitable relief, as
`this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00181 Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`Dated: May 25, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian R. Michalek by permission Claire
`Henry
`Brian R. Michalek (pro hac vice pending)
`Casey Grabenstein (pro hac vice pending)
`Brian Landry (pro hac vice pending)
`Erin Westbrook (pro hac vice pending)
`brian.michalek@saul.com
`casey.grabenstein@saul.com
`brian.landry@saul.com
`erin.westbrook@saul.com
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
`161 N. Clark St., Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: 312-876-7100
`Facsimile: 312-876-0288
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`E-mail: claire@wsfirm.com
`Andrea L. Fair
`Texas State Bar No. 24078488
`E-mail: andrea@wsfirm.com
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`(903) 757-6400 (telephone)
`(903) 757-2323 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC
`
`16
`
`