Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 5892
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-01277-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., ET AL,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION;
`TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC.;
`TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING
`TEXAS, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR
`MANUFACTURING KENTUCKY, INC.;
`and TOYOTA MOTOR
`MANUFACTURING MISSISSIPPI, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, files this First Amended Complaint against Defendants,
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”), Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. (“TMS”), Toyota Motor
`
`Manufacturing Texas, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc., and Toyota Motor
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 5893
`
`
`
`Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. (“Defendants”), for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271
`
`and alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Blitzsafe Texas LLC (“Blitzsafe”), is a limited liability company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, and maintains its principal place of
`
`business at 100 W. Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670. Blitzsafe sells automotive interface
`
`products that allow the end user to connect a third-party external audio device or multimedia
`
`device to a car stereo in order to play the content on the device through the car stereo system and
`
`speakers. Blitzsafe sells its products throughout the United States including in this judicial
`
`district. Blitzsafe is the owner of all right title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation with a place of
`
`business at 1 Toyota-cha, Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture 471-8571, Japan.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. is a California corporation with a place
`
`of business located at Legacy Drive in Plano, Texas.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, Inc. is a Texas corporation with a
`
`place of business at 1 Lone Star Pass, San Antonio, Texas 78264.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc. is a Kentucky corporation
`
`with a place of business at in 1001 Cherry Blossom Way, Georgetown, Kentucky 40324.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Toyota Motor Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. is a Mississippi
`
`corporation with a place of business at 1200 Magnolia Way, Blue Springs, Mississippi 38828.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 5894
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for 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).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants conduct
`
`business and have committed acts of patent infringement and/or have induced acts of patent
`
`infringement by others in this district and/or have contributed to patent infringement by others in
`
`this judicial district, the State of Texas, and elsewhere in the United States. Defendants have
`
`consented to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district through their filing of counterclaims in
`
`this action.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and
`
`1400(b) because, among other things, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`district, Defendants have regularly conducted business in this judicial district, and certain of the
`
`acts complained of herein occurred in this judicial district. Defendants have consented to
`
`personal jurisdiction in this judicial district through their filing of counterclaims in this action.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`On February 10, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 (the “’786 Patent”) entitled “Audio Device Integration
`
`System.” A true and correct copy of the ’786 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`11.
`
`On April 10, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (the “’342 Patent”) entitled “Multimedia Device
`
`Integration System.” A true and correct copy of the ’342 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 5895
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`12.
`
`The patents-in-suit generally cover systems for integrating third-party audio
`
`devices and multimedia devices with a car stereo.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants have been manufacturing, importing and/or selling audio and
`
`multimedia integration systems, including but not limited to Entune™, that have been installed
`
`in Toyota-branded vehicles made in or imported into the United States since at least
`
`approximately 2007.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant have been manufacturing, importing and/or selling audio and
`
`multimedia integration systems, including but not limited to Enform™, that have been installed
`
`in Lexus-branded vehicles made in or imported into the United States since at least
`
`approximately 2008.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants’ audio and multimedia integration systems include devices, such as
`
`the iPod Interface Kit, that connect to Defendants’ car stereos to support the integration of third-
`
`party external audio devices, such as MP3 players, with car stereos.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants’ audio and multimedia integration systems, including but not limited
`
`to portions of Entune and Enform, support the integration of third-party external audio devices,
`
`such as MP3 players, with the car radio. Defendants’ audio and multimedia integration systems,
`
`including but not limited to portions of Entune and Enform, permit an end user to connect a
`
`third-party external audio or multimedia device to the car radio by wire, such as through a USB
`
`port or auxiliary port, or wirelessly, such as through Bluetooth. Once connected, the end user
`
`may control the third-party external audio device using the car radio’s controls, and the audio
`
`from the external audio device may be played through the car radio and speakers.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5896
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of the ’786 Patent)
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Blitzsafe has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendants to make, use, offer
`
`for sale, sell, or import any products that embody the inventions of the ’786 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants have had actual knowledge of their infringement of the ’786 Patent
`
`since at least August 27, 2010.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants received further notice of their infringement of the ’786 Patent on
`
`December 8 and 9, 2011. On those days, two memoranda were circulated to engineering teams
`
`in Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (“TEMA”) which were
`
`responsible for designing aspects of the infringing audio and multimedia integration systems.
`
`The memoranda notified the engineering teams of then-current litigation concerning the ’786
`
`Patent against Ford Motor Company and provided a description of the disclosure of the ’786
`
`Patent. TEMA is a principal subsidiary of TMC and sister company of TMS.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants have and continue to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’786
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell,
`
`selling and/or importing into the United States infringing products, including the Entune and
`
`Enform audio and media integration systems, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants have and continue to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’786 Patent by knowingly and intentionally inducing others to directly infringe, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into
`
`the United States infringing products, including the Entune and Enform audio and media
`
`integration systems. For example, Defendants, with knowledge that Entune and Enform infringe
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 5897
`
`
`
`the ’786 Patent at least as of the date of this Complaint, knowingly and intentionally induced,
`
`and continue to knowingly and intentionally induce, direct infringement of the ’786 patent by
`
`providing Entune and Enform product manuals that instruct end users how to use Entune and
`
`Enform, including specifically how to connect their external third-party audio and multimedia
`
`devices to the car stereo. Defendants induced infringement by others, including end users, with
`
`the intent to cause infringing acts by others or, in the alternative, with the belief that there was a
`
`high probability that others, including end users, infringe the ’786 Patent, but while remaining
`
`willfully blind to the infringement.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants have and continue to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’786 Patent by contributing to the direct infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by others, including end users, by offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the
`
`United States the Entune and Enform audio and media integration systems, with the knowledge,
`
`at least as of the date of this Complaint, that Entune and Enform contain components that
`
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’786 Patent. Such components include,
`
`for example, interfaces that permit an end user to use a car radio’s controls to control an external
`
`third party audio device. Defendants know that these components are especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’786 Patent and that these components are
`
`not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants believed there was a high probability that others would infringe the
`
`’786 Patent but remained willfully blind to the infringing nature of others’ actions.
`
`24.
`
`Blitzsafe has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ direct and indirect
`
`infringement of the ’786 patent in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 5898
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Blitzsafe has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result of
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ’786 patent, for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`unless Defendants’ infringement is enjoined by this Court.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement despite
`
`an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of at least one valid and
`
`enforceable claim of the ’786 patent. Since at least August 27, 2010, or, at the very latest,
`
`December 8 and 9, 2011, Defendants actually knew or should have known that their actions
`
`constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of at least one valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the ’786 Patent. Defendants’ infringement of the ’786 Patent has been and continues to be
`
`willful, entitling Blitzsafe to an award of treble damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs in
`
`bringing this action.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of the ’342 Patent)
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Blitzsafe has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendants to make, use, offer
`
`for sale, sell, or import any products that embody the inventions of the ’342 Patent.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants have had actual notice of their infringement of the ’342 Patent since at
`
`least April 19, 2012, nine days after the ’342 Patent issued. On that day, two memoranda were
`
`circulated to engineering teams in Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
`
`Inc. (“TEMA”) which were responsible for designing aspects of the infringing audio and
`
`multimedia integration systems. The memoranda notified the engineering teams of the recent
`
`issuance of the ’342 Patent and provided a description of the disclosure of the ’342 Patent.
`
`TEMA is a principal subsidiary of TMC and sister company of TMS.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 5899
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Defendants have and continue to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’342
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell,
`
`selling and/or importing into the United States infringing products, including the Entune and
`
`Enform audio and media integration systems, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants have and continue to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’342 Patent by knowingly and intentionally inducing others to directly infringe, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into
`
`the United States infringing products, including the Entune and Enform audio and media
`
`integration systems. For example, Defendants, with knowledge that Entune and Enform infringe
`
`the ’342 Patent at least as of the date of this Complaint, knowingly and intentionally induced,
`
`and continue to knowingly and intentionally induce, direct infringement of the ’342 patent by
`
`providing Entune and Enform product manuals that instruct end users how to use Entune and
`
`Enform, including specifically how to connect their external third-party audio and multimedia
`
`devices to the car stereo. Defendants induced infringement by others, including end users, with
`
`the intent to cause infringing acts by others or, in the alternative, with the belief that there was a
`
`high probability that others, including end users, infringe the ’342 Patent, but while remaining
`
`willfully blind to the infringement.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants have and continue to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’342 Patent by contributing to the direct infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by others, including end users, by offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the
`
`United States the Entune and Enform audio and media integration systems, with the knowledge,
`
`at least as of the date of this Complaint, that Entune and Enform contain components that
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 5900
`
`
`
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’342 Patent. Such components include,
`
`for example, interfaces that permit an end user to use a car radio’s controls to control an external
`
`third-party audio device. Defendants know that these components are especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’342 Patent and that these components are
`
`not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants believed there was a high probability that others would infringe the
`
`’342 Patent but remained willfully blind to the infringing nature of others’ actions.
`
`33.
`
`Blitzsafe has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ direct and indirect
`
`infringement of the ’342 patent in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`34.
`
`Blitzsafe has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result of
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ’342 patent, for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`unless Defendants’ infringement is enjoined by this Court.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement despite
`
`an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of at least one valid and
`
`enforceable claim of the ’342 Patent. Since at least April 19, 2012, Defendants actually knew or
`
`should have known that their actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of at
`
`least one valid and enforceable claim of the ’342 Patent. Defendants’ infringement of the ’342
`
`Patent has been and continues to be willful, entitling Blitzsafe to an award of treble damages,
`
`reasonable attorney fees, and costs in bringing this action.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 5901
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Blitzsafe prays for relief against Defendants as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Entry of judgment declaring that Defendants have directly and/or indirectly
`
`infringed one or more claims of each of the patents-in-suit;
`
`b.
`
`Entry of judgment declaring that Defendants’ infringement of the patents-in-suit
`
`has been willful and deliberate;
`
`c.
`
`An order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 permanently enjoining Defendants, their
`
`officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them, from further acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit;
`
`d.
`
`An order awarding damages sufficient to compensate Blitzsafe for Defendants’
`
`infringement of the patents-in-suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs;
`
`e.
`
`An order awarding Blitzsafe treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of
`
`Defendants’ willful and deliberate infringement of the patents-in-suit;
`
`f.
`
`Entry of judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding Blitzsafe
`
`its costs and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`g.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 5902
`
`
`
`Dated: September 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
`_/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant_________
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Texas Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Texas Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker
`Texas Bar No. 2303089
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
`Texas Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 169 Filed 09/22/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 5903
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was
`
`filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a).
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`12