Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 48
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
`BESTBUY.COM, LLC, and BEST BUY
`TEXAS.COM, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00535
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,369,545; 8,020,083; and
`
`8,510,407 (the “patents-in-suit”), in which Plaintiff DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC
`
`(“DoDots”), makes the following allegations against Defendants Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), and Best
`
`Buy Stores, L.P., Bestbuy.com, LLC and Best Buy Texas.com, LLC (collectively, “Best
`
`Buy,” or “BBY) (collectively with Samsung, “Defendants”):
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`DoDots is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business at
`
`32932 Pacific Coast Highway #14-164, Dana Point, CA 92629.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1019
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 48
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, with a principal place
`
`of business at 129 Samseong-ro, Yeongtong-gu Gyeonggi-do 16677 Suwon-Shi, Republic
`
`of Korea (South).
`
`3.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. operates a wholly owned subsidiary,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), that has been registered to do business in
`
`the State of Texas and has been since at least June 10, 1996.
`
`4.
`
`SEA is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 85
`
`Challenger Rd., Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 97660. SEA is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. SEA may be served through its registered agent CT
`
`Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. exercises direction and control over the
`
`performance of SEA. Alternatively, Defendants form a joint business enterprise such
`
`that the performance by one Defendant is each attributable to the other Defendant.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung has maintained regular and established places of business or
`
`offices and/or other facilities in Texas at least at 12100 Samsung Blvd., Austin, Texas
`
`78754; 2800 Wells Branch Pkwy, Austin, TX 78728; 1301 East Lookout Drive,
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082; and 6635 Declaration Drive, Plano, TX 75023.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung’s products are offered for sale through numerous mobile carriers
`
`in this judicial District, including, but not limited to Verizon stores at 2812 W Loop 340
`
`Suite# H-12, Waco, TX 76711; 1820 S Valley Mills Dr, Waco, TX 7671; and 3590
`
`Greenlawn Blvd Suite 103, Round Rock, TX 78664; T-Mobile Stores at 2448 W Loop 340
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 3 of 48
`
`Suite 24a, Waco, TX 76711 and 208 Hewitt Dr Suite #200, Waco, TX 76712; and AT&T
`
`Stores at 4330 W Waco Dr, Waco, TX 76710; 2320 W Loop 340 #100A, Waco, TX 76711;
`
`and 1515 Hewitt Dr Ste A, Waco, TX 76712 (collectively, “Waco and Austin Carrier
`
`Stores”). On information and belief, Samsung products relevant to the allegations in this
`
`Complaint have been sold and used at the Waco and Austin Carrier Stores, and are
`
`offered for sale at the Waco and Austin Carrier Stores.
`
`8.
`
`Samsung has authorized sellers and sales representatives that offer and
`
`sell accused Samsung products relevant to this Complaint throughout the State of
`
`Texas, including in this District, and to consumers throughout this District, such as: Best
`
`Buy, 4627 S Jack Kultgen Expy, Waco, TX 76706 and 11066 Pecan Park Blvd Ste 300,
`
`Cedar Park, TX 78613.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business at 7601 Penn Ave South,
`
`Richfield, MN 55423.
`
`10. Defendant BestBuy.com, LLC is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business at 7601 Penn Ave South,
`
`Richfield, MN 55423.
`
`11. Defendant Best Buy Texas.com, LLC is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business at 7601 Penn Ave
`
`South, Richfield, MN 55423.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 4 of 48
`
`12.
`
`This is an action for infringement of U.S. patent nos. 9,369,545; 8,020,083;
`
`and 8,510,407 arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code.
`
`13.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung in this action pursuant
`
`to due process, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2)(B), and/or the Texas Long Arm
`
`Statute, by virtue of at least the substantial business Samsung conducts in this forum,
`
`directly and/or through intermediaries, including but not limited to: (1) having
`
`committed acts within the Western District of Texas giving rise to this action and
`
`having established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Samsung would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice; (2) having directed its activities to customers in the State of Texas
`
`and this District, solicited business in the State of Texas and this District, transacted
`
`business within the State of Texas and this District and attempted to derive financial
`
`benefit from residents of the State of Texas and this District, including benefits directly
`
`related to the instant patent infringement causes of action set forth herein; (3) having
`
`placed its products and services into the stream of commerce throughout the United
`
`States and having been actively engaged in transacting business in Texas and in this
`
`District; and (4) either individually, as members of a common business enterprise,
`
`and/or in conjunction with third parties, having committed acts of infringement within
`
`Texas and in this District.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 5 of 48
`
`15.
`
`Samsung has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in
`
`this District directly and through third parties by, among other things, making, selling,
`
`advertising (including through websites), offering to sell, distributing, and/or
`
`importing products and/or services that infringe the Asserted Patents as defined below.
`
`16.
`
`Samsung has, directly or through its distribution network, purposefully
`
`and voluntarily placed infringing products in the stream of commerce knowing and
`
`expecting them to be purchased and used by consumers in Texas.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung has committed direct infringement in Texas.
`
`18.
`
` Samsung has committed indirect infringement based on acts of direct
`
`infringement in Texas.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung has transacted, and as of the time of filing of the Complaint,
`
`continues to transact business within this District.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung derives substantial revenues from its infringing acts in this
`
`District, including from its manufacture and sale of infringing products in the United
`
`States.
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in this District
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a foreign
`
`corporation not resident in the United States and venue is proper in any district against
`
`a foreign corporation. Venue is proper for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1400 because SEA (1) has a regular and established place of business in this
`
`Judicial District, and (2) has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 6 of 48
`
`infringement in this Judicial District by, inter alia, directly and/or indirectly using,
`
`selling, or offering for sale, the accused Samsung products discussed below.
`
`22.
`
`Samsung has answered multiple complaints in this District, without
`
`contesting Venue and Personal Jurisdiction. For example, Samsung has filed answers in:
`
`Scramoge, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 6-21-cv-00454 (W.D. Tex); Wepay
`
`Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 6-21-cv-01095 (W.D. Tex); and
`
`VOIP-PAL.com.Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al, 6-21-cv-01246 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`23.
`
`BBY has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district.
`
`24.
`
`BBY has a regular established place of business in this judicial district at
`
`4627 S. Jack Kultgen Expy, Waco, TX 76706.
`
`
`
`25. On information and belief, the Court has personal jurisdiction over BBY
`
`because BBY has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state
`
`of Texas, has conducted business in the State of Texas, and/or has engaged in
`
`continuous and systematic activities in the State of Texas.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 7 of 48
`
`26. On information and belief, BBY’s instrumentalities that are alleged herein
`
`to infringe were and continue to be used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold in the
`
`Western District of Texas.
`
`27.
`
`BBY has agreed, on multiple occasions, that Best Buy Stores, L.P.,
`
`BestBuy.com, LLC, and Best Buy Texas.com LLC, all subsidiaries of Defendant Best Buy
`
`Co., Inc., were the proper defendants in this district and have agreed to not challenge
`
`venue for those defendants. See, e.g., MV3 Partners, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Case No. 18-cv-
`
`374 (W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 29 and NXP USA Inc., v. Mediatek Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-
`
`318, (W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 40 (“Substitute Best Buy Defendants are the proper parties to
`
`defend against allegations made in this patent infringement lawsuit.”).
`
`Background
`
`28.
`
`This case arises from groundbreaking technology that the named
`
`inventors of the patents-in-suit developed at the turn of the 21st century. At that time,
`
`accessing content on the internet generally involved the use of web browsers such as
`
`Microsoft’s Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator running on a personal computer or
`
`primitive mobile device. Viewing internet content on many devices was hindered by
`
`the fact that existing web content and web applications were designed to fit an entire
`
`web page displayed on a traditional computer monitor. Many web pages were also
`
`slow and difficult to navigate. Various attempts to enhance the traditional web pages,
`
`such as the addition of “plug-ins,” were equally unsuccessful because they only added
`
`to the “mess” of the web page. See https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/
`
`0515/6511334a.html
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 8 of 48
`
`29.
`
`John Kembel and George Kembel, twin brothers, recognized that there
`
`was dissatisfaction with the traditional web browser and that there was a “growing
`
`desire for individual users to fully control the aggregation and presentation of content
`
`and web applications that appears on a client computer.” See, e.g., U.S. patent no.
`
`9,369,545, col. 1, ll. 48-51.
`
`30.
`
`The Kembel brothers are Stanford engineering, business, and design
`
`school alumnae. They are the original founders of DoDots, Inc. Since that time, they
`
`have created other start-ups that were acquired by leading companies like Oracle
`
`Corporation.
`
`31.
`
`In view of this need in the marketplace, the Kembels sought to develop a
`
`unique and novel technical solution to a computer-specific process of retrieving and
`
`viewing content. The Kembels wanted to eliminate the need for a web browser all
`
`together. See https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0515/6511334a.html
`
`32.
`
`So, in 1999, the Kembels, along with fellow Stanford graduate student,
`
`Tony Medrano, founded DoDots, Inc. in Silicon Valley. They developed a novel
`
`approach to delivering content from the internet in the form of connected widgets or
`
`applications, called “Dots” rather than via a web browser. Those “Dots,” also referred
`
`to as “Network Information Monitors,” were “fully configurable frame[s] with one or
`
`more controls; the frame through which content is optionally presented.” See, e.g., U.S.
`
`patent no. 9,369,545, col. 4, ll. 56-60.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 9 of 48
`
`33.
`
`The Dots used one-tenth of the data that a traditional web page would
`
`use, thus allowing for faster loading and display of internet content. See Exh. 1 (Business
`
`2.0: “Windows on the World,” August 22, 2000).
`
`34. DoDots, Inc. raised over $20M in funding from leading Silicon Valley
`
`venture capital companies such as Softbank, Chase HQ and Merrill Lynch due to
`
`strength of their “Dot” technology.
`
`35.
`
` To commercialize this technology, DoDots, Inc. created a system and
`
`platform for its businesses and other third-parties to develop such widgets or apps and
`
`make them available to desktop and mobile devices. The technology was
`
`groundbreaking and revolutionary.
`
`36. As noted in an article by CNN in April 2000, the DoDots, Inc. technology
`
`was the “Web without a browser,” and “DoDots is an application made up of small
`
`windows called dots. Through these windows, you can take advantage of the features
`
`and services offered by certain Web sites without actually visiting them through a
`
`browser. Because the dots are small and operate outside the browser, they provide a
`
`faster, more direct link to content providers, according to representatives of DoDots, the
`
`new Internet company that makes the application. Each dot handles a specific task.
`
`’Essentially, it’s a little Web application on your desktop,’ says John Kembel, the
`
`company’s chief technology officer.” https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/
`
`computing/04/07/dodots.idg/index.html
`
`37. At its height, DoDots, Inc. employed more than 100 people that were
`
`designing, innovating, and selling the DoDots, Inc. technology. See
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 10 of 48
`
`https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Back+to+the+launch+pad%3a+after+a+few+dorman
`
`t+years%2c+tech+entrepreneurs...-a0169825785.
`
`38.
`
`The success of DoDots, Inc. saw it valued at $275 million. The company
`
`listed dozens of customers that had used the technology to distribute their own Dots,
`
`including ABC, Bloomberg, Edmunds, CNET and Merriam-Webster. Seeking to
`
`capitalize on this marketplace adoption, the company evangelized the concept of Dots
`
`and demonstrated the technology to all who would listen, including at conferences
`
`attended by many leading technology companies of today. See Exh. 1 (Business 2.0:
`
`“Windows on the World,” August 22, 2000).
`
`39.
`
`Indeed, companies like ABC saw the value of the Dot technology and
`
`were extremely excited to partner with DoDots, Inc. As Alan Cohen, executive vice
`
`president of marketing and advertising of ABC stated “In our continuing effort to find
`
`new ways to connect with our audience, the ABC Dot truly stands out as a
`
`revolutionary new communication device…. the ABC Dot will give our viewers a
`
`chance to use their computer desktops in ways they never imagined.” The ABC Dot was
`
`used with such popular shows like “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” and “NYPD Blue”,
`
`among others. See Exh. 2, DoDots, Inc. Press Release, October 2, 2000.
`
`40. DoDots, Inc. launched and scaled a developer program, cultivating a
`
`community of over 400 independent Dot developers who were deploying Dots and a
`
`base of over 250,000 end-users.
`
`41. DoDots, Inc. also sought and entered into partnerships with leading
`
`wireless solutions providers such as 2Roam, to expand its reach to the wireless market.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 11 of 48
`
`The CEO of 2Roam, Bryan Wargo, stated “DoDots technology is a killer application for
`
`wireless devices as it supports the information needs of the on-the-go mobile
`
`professional and, like 2Roam, enables users to maintain a constant state with their
`
`wireless content or application.” And Bob D’Acquisto, 2Roam’s director of business
`
`development, recognized that “[the DoDots, Inc. technology] gives 2Roam a new and
`
`unique way to package and distribute content to [its] customers…it’s a win-win for
`
`everyone.” See Exh. 3, DoDots, Inc. Press Release, September 7, 2000.
`
`42. DoDots, Inc. won back-to-back awards from DemoGod at the DEMO2000
`
`and DEMOMobile 2001 conferences, the leading industry event for disruptive
`
`technologies at the time.
`
`43. DoDots, Inc. was named as an “Investor’s Choice” winner at the
`
`Technologic Partners’ Internet Outlook Conference held in Silicon Valley in September
`
`2000. See Exh. 4, DoDots, Inc. Press Release, September 20, 2000.
`
`44. Unfortunately, when the industry-wide dot com bubble burst, investors
`
`withdrew support at a critical stage of its growth, leaving DoDots, Inc. with limited
`
`options. Notwithstanding the collapse of DoDots, Inc., the technology it pioneered has
`
`been co-opted by numerous companies selling mobile devices, computers, and web
`
`applications, including Defendants.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`45. On June 14, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly
`
`and lawfully issued U.S. Patent No. 9,369,545 (the “’545 Patent”), entitled “Accessing
`
`and Displaying Network Content,” naming John Albert Kembel, George Andrew
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 12 of 48
`
`Kembel, Daniel S. Kim, John Russell, Jake Wobbrock, Geoffrey S. Kembel, Jeremy L.
`
`Kembel, and Lynn D. Gabbay as inventors.
`
`46. DoDots is the lawful owner of all right, title and interest in the ’545 Patent
`
`and has the right to sue and to recover for past infringement of the ’545 Patent. A copy
`
`of the ’545 Patent is attached as Exh. 5.
`
`47. On September 9, 2020, the USPTO’s Patent and Trial Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) issued a final written decision finding that “Petitioner has not shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 and 12–15 of the ’545 patent are
`
`unpatentable.” Specifically, the PTAB rejected the assertion that any of the challenged
`
`claims were invalid as obvious under § 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s
`
`decision on December 8, 2021. See Lenovo Holding Co. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, Nos.
`
`2021-1247, 2021-1521, 2021-1580, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36126, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8,
`
`2021).
`
`48. On September 13, 2011, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,020,083 (the “’083 Patent”), entitled “System and Methods for Creating and
`
`Authoring Internet Content Using Application Media Packages,” naming John Kembel
`
`et al. as the inventors.
`
`49. DoDots is the lawful owner of all right, title and interest in the ’083 Patent
`
`and has the right to sue and to recover for past infringement of the ’083 Patent. A copy
`
`of the ’083 Patent is attached as Exh. 6.
`
`50. On January 19, 2021, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding that
`
`“claims 1–16 of the ʼ083 patent have not been shown to be unpatentable.” Specifically,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 13 of 48
`
`the PTAB rejected the assertion that any of the challenged claims were invalid as
`
`obvious under § 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision on December 8,
`
`2021. See Lenovo Holding Co. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, Nos. 2021-1247, 2021-1521,
`
`2021-1580, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36126, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021).
`
`51. On August 13, 2013, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,510,407 (the “’407 Patent”, collectively with the ’545 and ’083 patent, the “patents-in-
`
`suit”), entitled “Displaying Time-Varying Internet Based Data Using Application
`
`Media,” naming John Kembel et al. as the inventors.
`
`52. DoDots is the lawful owner of all right, title and interest in the ’407 Patent
`
`and has the right to sue and to recover for past infringement of the ’407 Patent. A copy
`
`of the ’407 Patent is attached as Exh. 7.
`
`53. On January 5, 2021, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding that
`
`“Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims
`
`1, 8–13, and 20–24 are unpatentable.” Specifically, the PTAB rejected the assertion that
`
`any of the challenged claims were invalid as obvious under § 103. The Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed the PTAB’s decision on December 8, 2021. See Lenovo Holding Co. v. DoDots
`
`Licensing Sols. LLC, Nos. 2021-1247, 2021-1521, 2021-1580, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36126,
`
`at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021).
`
`Samsung’s Infringing Devices and Activities
`
`54. Defendants make, have made, use, have used, sell, have sold, offer for
`
`sale, and/or import into the United States devices including Samsung Galaxy Z Series
`
`Mobile Phones, Galaxy S Series Mobile Phones, Galaxy Note Series Mobile Phones,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 14 of 48
`
`Galaxy A Series Mobile Phones, Galaxy M Series Mobile phones, and Galaxy Tab Series
`
`Tablets (collectively, “Accused Samsung Devices”).
`
`55. Additionally, with each device, Samsung launched and continues to
`
`operate, use, and sell an operating system customized from the Android OS (e.g.
`
`Android OS12, OS 11, QOS 10, Pie (9.0),Oreo (8.0), Nougat (7.0), Marshmallow (6.0),
`
`Lollipop (5.0), KitKat (4.4), Jellybean (4.3, 4.2 and 4.1), Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0),
`
`Honeycomb (3.0), Gingerbread (2.3), Froyo (2.2), Éclair (2.1), Donut (1.6) (collectively,
`
`“the Samsung OS”) along with other software (e.g., installers, the Play Store app, and
`
`the Galaxy App Store app) that are pre-installed or updated on each Accused Samsung
`
`Device (the “Accused Samsung Software”). Samsung programmed, customized,
`
`preinstalled, and developed the Accused Samsung Software specifically for its Accused
`
`Samsung Devices and is directly responsible for, and has direct control over the use of
`
`the Samsung OS along with other software.
`
`56.
`
`Each and every iteration of the Accused Samsung Software is specifically
`
`designed by Samsung to cause the Accused Samsung Devices to download applications
`
`from an App Store (“Samsung-Supported Apps”) in a specific manner. Through these
`
`stores various apps can be downloaded for usage on the Accused Samsung Devices.
`
`More particularly, Samsung is directly responsible for, and has direct control over,
`
`because of the way it programmed and developed the Accused Samsung Software, each
`
`and every Accused Samsung Device that is configured to execute the Accused Samsung
`
`Software code to obtain Samsung-Supported Apps by transmitting a request to the App
`
`Store and receiving the Samsung-Supported App in response to that request.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 15 of 48
`
`57. Moreover, each Samsung-Supported App, which runs on the Accused
`
`Samsung Software contains specific information that allows the user experience
`
`(including the graphical user interface) of the Samsung-Supported App to be presented
`
`on the display of the Accused Samsung Devices.
`
`58.
`
`By making, selling, offering for sale, and importing the Accused Samsung
`
`Devices that require the Accused Samsung Software which executes specific code to
`
`obtain, install, and use Samsung-Supported Apps, Samsung directly infringes the
`
`patents-in-suit. Further, by making, selling, offering for sale, importing, operating, and
`
`using the Accused Samsung Software installed and running on the Accused Samsung
`
`Devices that require the Accused Samsung Software, which executes specific code to
`
`obtain and utilize Samsung-Supported Apps, Samsung directly infringes the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`The Accused Samsung Devices Infringe the ’545 Patent
`
`59.
`
`Samsung directly infringes all of the claims of the ’545 patent.
`
`60.
`
`For example, Claim 1 of the ’545 patent reads as follows:
`
`(Claim 1 Preamble) A computer-implemented method of obtaining content
`over a network and displaying the content to a user, the method being
`implemented in a client computing device in operative communication
`with a server over a network, the client computing device including
`electronic storage, a display, and one or more processors configured to
`execute one or more computer program modules, the method comprising:
`
`(Claim 1 limitation (a)) transmitting a request to the server over the
`network, the request requesting networked information monitor template;
`
`(Claim 1 limitation (b)) receiving the requested networked information
`monitor template from the server over the internet, the requested
`networked information monitor template having been transmitted from the
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 16 of 48
`
`server over the network responsive to the transmitted request, the
`networked information monitor template comprising:
`
`a definition of a viewer graphical user interface within which content
`in a web browser-readable language may be presented on the
`display of the client computing device; and
`
`a definition of a first content element for the networked information
`monitor template, the definition of the first content element
`referencing a first network location from which the first content
`element for the networked information monitor template is served
`over the network;
`
`(Claim 1 limitation (c)) responsive to instructions included in the requested
`networked information monitor template, presenting the viewer graphical
`user interface defined by the networked information monitor on the display
`of the client computing device separate from and outside of any other
`graphical user interface that includes user controls for specifying the first
`network location from which the first content element for the networked
`information monitor is served over the network;
`
`(Claim 1 limitation (d)) responsive to instructions included in the requested
`networked information monitor template, transmitting over the network a
`first content request to the first network location referenced by the
`definition of the first content element for the networked information
`monitor template;
`
`(Claim 1 limitation (e)) receiving, over the network, the first content
`element transmitted responsive to the first content request;
`
`(Claim 1 limitation(f)) presenting the received the first content element in
`the viewer graphical user interface defined by the networked information
`monitor template, wherein the definition of the viewer graphical user
`interface and/or the first content element define all controls for enabling a
`user to interact with the first content element through the viewer graphical
`user interface.
`
`61.
`
`Samsung infringes each step of the computer-implemented method
`
`recited in Claim 1 of the ‘545 patent because it implements, operates and uses its
`
`Accused Samsung Software, which executes specific code to obtain, display and use
`
`Samsung-Supported Apps, on its Accused Samsung Devices, which are in operative
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 17 of 48
`
`communication with a server over a network and include electronic storage, a display,
`
`and one or more processors configured to execute one or more computer program
`
`modules.
`
`62.
`
`First, the preamble of Claim 1 is met because Samsung executes, operates
`
`uses, and has direct control over a computer-implemented method of obtaining content
`
`over a network (such as the internet) and displaying the content to a user that is
`
`implemented on each and every Accused Samsung Device, which are in operative
`
`communication with a server over a network and include electronic storage, a display,
`
`and one or more processors configured to execute one or more computer program
`
`modules:
`
`
`
`Source: CNET: “Here's every Galaxy S phone since 2010” accessed at
`(https://www.cnet.com/pictures/evolution-history-samsung-galaxy-phones/)
`
`
`63. On each of the Accused Samsung Devices, the Accused Samsung
`
`Software, because Samsung directly and specifically programmed it to do so, practices
`
`the claimed method by implementing code on a client computing device (i.e., each
`
`Accused Samsung Device) in operative communication with a server over a network
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 18 of 48
`
`(such as the internet), the client computing device (i.e., each Accused Samsung Device)
`
`including electronic storage, a display (such as each Accused Samsung Device’s screen),
`
`and one or more processors (such as each Accused Samsung Device’s processor(s))
`
`configured to execute one or more computer program modules.
`
`64.
`
`Specifically, the Accused Samsung Devices that execute the Accused
`
`Samsung Software have electronic storage, display, and processor that are used to
`
`communication over a wireless network to access the internet, as seen in the product
`
`specifications shown below:
`
`
`
`Source: https://news.samsung.com/global/specifications-of-the-galaxy-s-series
`
`
`65.
`
`Samsung infringes limitation (a) of Claim 1 because the Accused Samsung
`
`Software in each and every Accused Samsung Device transmits a request to a server
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 19 of 48
`
`over the network, the request requesting a networked information monitor template. In
`
`particular, Samsung programs, executes and uses, and has direct control over the
`
`Accused Samsung Software in each and every Accused Samsung Device in a specific
`
`and particular manner so that the Accused Samsung Software sends a request to the
`
`App Store for an application package (the application package herein is an APK file) to
`
`the server over the network and that request requests a networked information monitor
`
`template (e.g., APK file, which is a data structure including data structures that
`
`constitute the NIM template).
`
`66.
`
`Samsung infringes limitation (b) of Claim 1 because Samsung
`
`programmed and executes the Accused Samsung Software in its Accused Samsung
`
`Devices to receive the requested networked information monitor (“NIM”) template
`
`(such as, for example, a Stock app/widget) from a server over the internet, the
`
`requested networked information monitor template having been transmitted from a
`
`server over the network responsive to the Accused Samsung Software’s transmitted
`
`request.
`
`67. Moreover, the Accused Samsung Software requires the APK file for any
`
`Samsung-Supported App, which includes a NIM template, to include:
`
`a definition of a viewer graphical user interface within which content (e.g.,
`how and where the graphical user interface presents a stock price)) in a web
`browser-readable language (such as a xml. or a .json files) may be presented
`on the display (monitor) of the client computing device (i.e., each Accused
`Samsung Device); and
`
`a definition of a first content element (incorporating the present price of a
`stock) for the networked information monitor template, the definition of the
`first content element referencing a first network location (such as using
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 20 of 48
`
`uniform resource locators) from which the first content element for the
`networked information monitor template is served over the network.
`
`68.
`
`Specifically, the data structures in APK file for any Samsung-Supported
`
`App comprises a definition of a viewer graphical user interface within which content in
`
`a web browser-readable language may be presented on the display of the client
`
`computing device.
`
`69.
`
`For example, the data structures in APK files for any Samsung-Supported
`
`App is used to define a viewer graphical user interface (e.g., a user interface presented
`
`on the screen) that may include menus, buttons, and other features. The app resource
`
`contains the files related to the visual presentation of the application, as suggested by
`
`the excerpts below.
`
`
`Source: https://developer.android.com/guide/components/fundamentals
`
`
`
`70. Additionally, the data structures in APK file for any Samsung-Supported
`
`App (i.e., the NIM template) comprises a definition of a first content element for the
`
`networked information monitor template, the definition of the first content element
`
`referencing a first network location from which the first content element for the
`
`networked information monitor template is served over the network.
`
`71.
`
`For example, the data structures in APK file for any Samsung-Supported
`
`App comprises a definition of a first content element (for the example of a Stock app, a
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535 Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 21 of 48
`
`definition of Stoc