UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01138-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Scramoge”) submits the following Preliminary
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to Defendant Google LLC
`
`(“Defendant” or “Google”). This disclosure is based on the information available to Scramoge as
`
`of the date of this disclosure, and Scramoge reserves the right to amend this disclosure to the full
`
`extent consistent with the Court’s Rules and Orders.
`
`I.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Scramoge asserts that Google has infringed and continue to infringe at least the following
`
`claims of Scramoge’s patents (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”):
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 10,193,392 (“the ’392 Patent”): Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537 (“the ’537 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
`
`14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, and 28.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to seek leave of court to add, delete, substitute, or otherwise
`
`amend this list of asserted claims should further discovery, the Court’s claim construction, or other
`
`circumstances so merit.
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`GOOGLE AND SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1008
`
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01138-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Scramoge”) submits the following Preliminary
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to Defendant Google LLC
`
`(“Defendant” or “Google”). This disclosure is based on the information available to Scramoge as
`
`of the date of this disclosure, and Scramoge reserves the right to amend this disclosure to the full
`
`extent consistent with the Court’s Rules and Orders.
`
`I.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Scramoge asserts that Google has infringed and continue to infringe at least the following
`
`claims of Scramoge’s patents (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”):
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 10,193,392 (“the ’392 Patent”): Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537 (“the ’537 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
`
`14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, and 28.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to seek leave of court to add, delete, substitute, or otherwise
`
`amend this list of asserted claims should further discovery, the Court’s claim construction, or other
`
`circumstances so merit.
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`GOOGLE AND SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1008
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Accused Products
`
`Scramoge contends that the Asserted Claims are infringed by the various apparatuses used,
`
`made, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the United States by Google (the “Accused
`
`Products”). The Accused Products include at least the following, as well as products with
`
`reasonably similar functionality:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`’392 Patent: Google Pixel Stand and Pixel Stand 2nd Generation.
`
`’537 Patent: Google Pixel Stand and Pixel Stand 2nd Generation.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to amend this list of accused instrumentalities, as well as other
`
`information contained in this document and the exhibits hereto, to incorporate new information
`
`learned during the course of discovery, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of newly
`
`released products, versions, or any other equivalent devices ascertained through discovery.
`
`Further, to the extent any accused infringing products have gone through or will go through name
`
`changes, but were or will be used or sold with the same accused features, earlier corresponding
`
`products under different names also are accused.
`
`III. Claim Charts
`
`Claim charts identifying a location of every element of every asserted claim of the asserted
`
`Scramoge Patents within accused products are attached hereto as Exhibits A-B. Scramoge’s
`
`analysis of the Accused Products is based on limited publicly available information and based on
`
`Scramoge’s own investigation prior to any discovery in this action. In an effort to focus the issues,
`
`Scramoge identifies exemplary evidence for each claim limitation. The evidence cited for a
`
`particular limitation should be considered in light of the additional evidence cited for the other
`
`claim limitations. Scramoge reserves the right to rely on evidence cited for any particular
`
`limitation of an asserted claim for any other limitation asserted for that claim. Unless otherwise
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`indicated, the information provided that corresponds to each claim element is considered to
`
`indicate that each claim element is found within each of the different variations of each respective
`
`Accused Products described above.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to amend these claim charts, as well as other information
`
`contained in this document and the exhibits hereto. Scramoge further reserves the right to amend
`
`these claim charts to incorporate new information learned during the course of discovery,
`
`including, but not limited to, information that is not publicly available or readily discernible
`
`without discovery or undue burden.
`
`IV.
`
`Literal Infringement / Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Scramoge asserts that Google infringes the asserted claims listed above under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), and/or (f). Scramoge contends that Google has directly infringed and
`
`continues to directly infringe the asserted claims by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and
`
`importing into the United States the Accused Products. Scramoge also contends that Google (i)
`
`induces end users of the Accused Products to directly infringe the Asserted Claims and (ii)
`
`contributes to end users’ direct infringement of the Asserted Claims. Scramoge asserts that, under
`
`the proper construction of the asserted claims and their claim terms, the limitations of the asserted
`
`claims of the asserted Scramoge patents are literally present in the accused products, as set forth
`
`in the claim charts attached hereto as Exhibits A-B. Scramoge contends that any and all elements
`
`found not to be literally infringed are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents because the
`
`differences between the claimed inventions and the accused instrumentalities, if any, are
`
`insubstantial.
`
`Scramoge’s contention is that each limitation is literally met, and necessarily also would
`
`be met under the doctrine of equivalents because there are no substantial differences between the
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`Accused Products and the claims, in function, way, or result. If Google attempts to argue that
`
`there is no infringement literally and also no infringement under doctrine of equivalents and
`
`attempts to draw any distinction between the claimed functionality and the functionality in the
`
`Accused Products, then Scramoge reserves its right to rebut the alleged distinction as a matter of
`
`literal infringement and/or as to whether any such distinction is substantial under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to amend its Infringement Contentions as to literal
`
`infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in light of new information learned
`
`during the course of discovery and the Court’s claim construction.
`
`V.
`
`Priority Dates
`
`The Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date of at least the following:
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,392: Each asserted claim of the ’392 Patent is entitled to
`
`at least a priority date of January 8, 2014.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,825,537: Each asserted claim of the ’537 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of November 14, 2008.
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Instrumentalities Practicing the Claimed Inventions
`
`At this time, Scramoge is not relying on any assertion that any of its own instrumentalities
`
`practice the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`VII. Document Production Accompanying Disclosure
`
`Scramoge submits the following Document Production Accompanying Disclosure, along
`
`with an identification of the categories to which each of the documents corresponds.
`
`Scramoge is presently unaware of any documents sufficient to evidence any discussion
`
`with, disclosure to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to sell, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`inventions recited in the Asserted Claims of the asserted patents prior to the application date or
`
`priority date for the asserted patents. A diligent search continues for documents and Scramoge
`
`reserves the right to supplement this response.
`
`Scramoge is presently unaware of documents regarding the conception, reduction to
`
`practice, design, and development of each claimed invention of the asserted patents, which were
`
`created before the date of application for the asserted patent or the priority date identified above.
`
`A diligent search continues for documents and Scramoge reserves the right to supplement this
`
`response.
`
`Scramoge identifies the following documents as being the file histories for the Asserted
`
`Patents: SCRAMOGE-GOOG2-00000156 - SCRAMOGE-GOOG2-00001104.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett Cooper
`
`
`Brett E. Cooper (NY SBN 4011011)
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Seth Hasenour (TX SBN 24059910)
`shasenour@raklaw.com
`Drew B. Hollander (NY SBN 5378096)
`dhollander@raklaw.com
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Scramoge Technology
`Limited
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this document is being served upon counsel of record for Defendants on
`
`January 28, 2022 via electronic service.
`
`
`
`/s/ Drew Hollander
` Drew B. Hollander
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
