Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 1 of 43 PageID #: 1
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00514
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., and AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 2 of 43 PageID #: 2
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`brings this action and makes the following allegations of patent infringement relating to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,901,272, 6,519,005, and 7,016,676 against Defendants AT&T Services, Inc., and
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC (collectively “AT&T”) and alleges as follows upon actual knowledge with
`
`respect to itself and its own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement. Uniloc alleges that AT&T infringes
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,901,272 (the “’272 patent”), 6,519,005 (the “’005 patent”), and 7,016,676 (the
`
`“’676 patent”), copies of which are attached as Exhibits A-C, respectively (collectively “the
`
`Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Uniloc alleges that AT&T directly and indirectly infringes the Asserted Patents by
`
`importing, making, offering for sale, selling and operating (1) applications such as the AT&T
`
`Smart Home Manager, (2) devices that practice a method for motion coding an uncompressed
`
`digital video data stream such as AT&T U-verse, and (3) AT&T’s network, base stations, and
`
`controllers that provide shared network access to LTE-LAA and Wi-Fi capable devices over at
`
`lease one common frequency band. AT&T also induces and contributes to the infringement of
`
`others. Uniloc seeks damages and other relief for the AT&T’s infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC is a Delaware corporation having places of business at 1209
`
`Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, 620 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach,
`
`California 92660 and 102 N. College Avenue, Suite 303, Tyler, TX 75702.
`
`4.
`
`Uniloc holds all substantial rights, title and interest in and to the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 3 of 43 PageID #: 3
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a place of business at 175 E. Houston, San Antonio, Texas 78205 and a
`
`registered agent for service of process at CT Corp System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas,
`
`Texas 75201
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with a of business at 1025 Lenox Park Blvd NE, Atlanta, Georgia
`
`30319 and a registered agent for service of process at CT Corp System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite
`
`900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief AT&T has at least the following regular and
`
`established places of business in this District: 4757 S. Broadway Ave., Tyler Texas 75703; 2028
`
`Southeast Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701; 8922 S. Broadway Ave., Tyler, Texas 75703.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action for patent infringement arises under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over AT&T
`
`because they have committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action
`
`and have established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction
`
`over AT&T would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. AT&T,
`
`directly and through subsidiaries and intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, franchisees
`
`and others), has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by,
`
`among other things, making, using, testing, selling, licensing, importing, and/or offering for
`
`sale/license products and services that infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 4 of 43 PageID #: 4
`
`10. Venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(d) and
`
`1400(b) because AT&T has committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas and
`
`has multiple regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,901,272
`
`11. The allegations of paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint are incorporated by
`
`reference as though fully set forth herein.
`
`12. The ’272 patent titled, “Ergonomic System For Control of Devices Through
`
`Portable Wireless Terminals,” issued on May 31, 2005. A copy of the ’272 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’272 patent is presumed valid.
`
`Invented by Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., the inventions of the ’272
`
`patent were not well-understood, routine or conventional at the time of the invention. At the
`
`time of invention of the ’272 patent, embedded systems were used to perform specific real-world
`
`applications like controlling complex broadcast systems, reading bar codes, printing postage
`
`stamps, or routing data over the Internet. ’272 patent at 1:11-20. At the time it was desirable to
`
`provide remote access to these systems, to allow them to be “unmanned.” Id. at 1:21-23. Prior
`
`art methods for providing remote access included using dial-up connections, Ethernet
`
`connections, and other wired connections. Id. at 1:47-2:32. While most remote access methods
`
`require the operator to be wired to the equipment, some forms of access, especially emergency
`
`system access, may be better served by a wireless connection. Id. at 2:33-36. At the time of the
`
`’272 patent, wireless methods to remotely access embedded equipment were available, but were
`
`limited due to the complexity of a two-way radio link, and the size limitations of typical mobile
`
`control devices. Id. at 2:36-38. Prior art wireless remote access techniques also lacked the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 5 of 43 PageID #: 5
`
`features enjoyed by wired access. Id. at 2:51-53. For example, wireless control devices tended
`
`to be custom-built and limited in operating range from the facilities to which they have access.
`
`Id. at 2:53-55. The control interfaces of those devices were also limited in terms of how easily
`
`they may be upgraded and expanded in terms of functionality. Id. at 2:55-57. Above all, the cost
`
`of such systems is usually prohibitive since these devices do not approach the mass-market
`
`volumes required for favorable pricing. Id. at 2:61-63. Consequently, the most widely used
`
`wireless remote access solution involves calling another operator at the facility with a cell phone.
`
`Id. at 2:64-66. That did not satisfactorily address situations where access is impossible due to
`
`geographic or weather isolation, and especially crisis situations where the facility must be
`
`evacuated. Id. at 2:66-3:2.
`
`15. The inventive solution of the claimed inventions of the ’272 patent provides a
`
`paradigm shift in user interfaces for remote control of portable terminals. Id. at 3:4-6. The
`
`invention provides a method and interface that is particularly suitable for remote access to an
`
`embedded system using the capabilities available on data-capable wireless phones. Id. at 3:6-8.
`
`The controlling device may be a consumer grade digital cell phone. Id. at 3:8-9. The wireless
`
`data services they connect to are readily available nationwide from several providers. Id. at 3:9-
`
`12. An intuitive, fast, and ergonomic user interface permits an operator to not only assess the
`
`status of the remote device, but also directly control the equipment of interest. Id. at 3:12-15.
`
`16. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’272 patent and its claims would
`
`understand that the patent’s disclosure and claims are drawn to solving a specific, technical
`
`problem arising in the field of remote control entry of commands using portable wireless devices
`
`to control embedded systems, such as Internet routers. Id. at 1:8-16. Moreover, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed subject matter of the ’272 patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 6 of 43 PageID #: 6
`
`presents advancements in the field of remote control entry of control commands through portable
`
`wireless devices to embedded systems, and more particularly to controlling a base device from a
`
`wireless terminal connected to receive data from a wireless server. Id. at 12:28-41.
`
`17. AT&T makes, uses, offers for sale and sells in the United States and imports into
`
`the United States applications, such as the AT&T Smart Home Manager, that practice a method
`
`of controlling a base device from a wireless terminal connected to receive data from a wireless
`
`server (collectively the “Accused Infringing Applications”).
`
`18. Upon information and belief, the Accused Infringing Applications infringe claim
`
`6 of the ’272 patent by practicing a method in the exemplary manner described below.
`
`19. The Accused Infringing Applications provide a method of controlling a base
`
`device from a wireless terminal connected to receive data from a wireless server. The Accused
`
`Infringing Applications, such as the AT&T Smart Home Manager, enable the control of an
`
`AT&T Wi-Fi gateway (i.e., base station server) from a wireless terminal. AT&T and others
`
`practice the method of claim 6 by way of the AT&T Smart Home Manager.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 7 of 43 PageID #: 7
`
`
`Source: http://about.att.com/inside_connections_blog/simplify_home_wifi
`
`
`20. The AT&T Smart Home Manager can be installed on a wireless device using a
`
`
`
`wireless Internet connection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 8 of 43 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.att.shm&hl=en_US
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 9 of 43 PageID #: 9
`
`21. The Accused Infringing Applications provide a method for displaying on a first
`
`screen first and second link controls permitting modification of respective first and second
`
`parameters of said base device. The AT&T Smart Home Manager application allows a user of a
`
`wireless terminal to modify first and second parameters of the base station (e.g., AT&T Wi-Fi
`
`gateway), including for example, enabling/disabling access for specific devices connected to a
`
`particular network.
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://forums.att.com/t5/AT-T-Internet-Equipment/Smart-Home-Manager-Learn-How-
`To-Personalize-Your-Network/td-p/5153126
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 10 of 43 PageID #: 10
`
`22. The Accused Infringing Applications provide a method for displaying on said first
`
`screen respective current values of said first and second parameters. The current values of the
`
`first and second parameters are displayed on the screen (first screen) of the AT&T Smart Home
`
`Manager application. For example, on a first screen a number of devices are shown including
`
`their connected status to the network (e.g., by way of a green dot.)
`
`Source: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/smb-internet/KM1237605
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 11 of 43 PageID #: 11
`
`
`Source: https://apps.mfcbox.com/app/1258654743/smart-home-manager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 12 of 43 PageID #: 12
`
`23. The Accused Infringing Applications provide a method for in response to a
`
`selection of a first link control, displaying on a second screen a data control permitting
`
`modification of said first parameter. For example, when a specific device is selected on the
`
`device screen of the AT&T Smart Home Manager application, the second screen is displayed.
`
`The second screen provides modification of the first parameter (e.g., the connected status (“Wi-
`
`Fi access” of the selected device.)
`
`Source: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/smb-internet/KM1237605
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 13 of 43 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://forums.att.com/t5/AT-T-Internet-Equipment/Smart-Home-Manager-Learn-How-
`To-Personalize-Your-Network/td-p/5153126
`
`
`24. The Accused Infringing Applications provide a method for displaying on said
`
`
`
`second screen said current value of said first parameter. For example, the second screen also
`
`displays the Wi-Fi access parameter for each device on the network as it is toggled “On” or
`
`“Off.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 14 of 43 PageID #: 14
`
`Source: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/smb-internet/KM1237605
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://forums.att.com/t5/AT-T-Internet-Equipment/Smart-Home-Manager-Learn-How-
`To-Personalize-Your-Network/td-p/5153126
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 15 of 43 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`
`25. AT&T has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 6 of the ’272 patent
`
`in the United States, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing the Accused
`
`Infringing Applications in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`26. AT&T also has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 6 of the ’272
`
`patent by actively inducing others to use, offer for sale, and sell the Accused Infringing
`
`Applications. AT&T’s users, customers, agents or other third parties who use those devices in
`
`accordance with AT&T’s instructions infringe claim 6 of the ’272 patent, in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a). AT&T intentionally instructs customers to infringe through training videos,
`
`demonstrations, brochures and user guides, such as those located at: www.att.com;
`
`forums.att.com; www.att.com/esupport; https://forums.att.com/t5/AT-T-Internet-
`
`Equipment/Smart-Home-Manager-Learn-How-To-Personalize-Your-Network/td-p/5153126;
`
`https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/smb-internet/KM1237605. AT&T is thereby liable
`
`for infringement of the ’272 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`27. AT&T also has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 6 of the ’272
`
`patent by offering to commercially distribute, commercially distributing, or importing the
`
`Accused Infringing Applications which are used in practicing the processes, and constitute a
`
`material part of the invention. AT&T knows portions of the Accused Infringing Applications to
`
`be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’272 patent, not a staple
`
`article, and not a commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. AT&T is
`
`thereby liable for infringement of the ’272 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`28. AT&T is on notice of infringement of the ’272 patent by no later than the filing
`
`and service of this Complaint and by virtue of a previously filed case against AT&T concerning
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 16 of 43 PageID #: 16
`
`the ’272 patent. By the time of trial, AT&T will have known and intended (since receiving such
`
`notice) that its continued actions would actively induce and contribute to the infringement of at
`
`least claim 6 of the ’272 patent.
`
`29. Upon information and belief, AT&T may have infringed and continues to infringe
`
`the ’272 patent through other software and devices utilizing the same or reasonably similar
`
`functionality, including other versions of the Accused Infringing Applications.
`
`30. AT&T’s acts of direct and indirect infringement have caused and continue to
`
`cause damage to Uniloc and Uniloc is entitled to recover damages sustained as a result of
`
`AT&T’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,519,005
`
`31. The allegations of paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint are incorporated by
`
`reference as though fully set forth herein.
`
`32. The ’005 patent titled, “Method Of Concurrent Multiple-Mode Estimation for
`
`Digital Video,” issued on February 11, 2003. A copy of the ’005 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’005 patent is presumed valid.
`
`Invented by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., the inventions of the ’005
`
`patent were not well-understood, routine or conventional at the time of the invention. At the
`
`time of invention of the ’005 patent, different compression algorithms had been developed for
`
`digitally encoding video and audio information (hereinafter referred to generically as “digital
`
`video data stream”) in order to minimize the bandwidth required to transmit this digital video
`
`data stream for a given picture quality. ’005 patent at 1:12-17. Several multimedia specification
`
`committees established and proposed standards for encoding/compressing and
`
`decoding/decompressing audio and video information. The most widely accepted international
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 17 of 43 PageID #: 17
`
`standards have been proposed by the Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG). Id. at 1:17-22
`
`Video coding, such as MPEG coding, involves a number of steps. In general, in accordance with
`
`the MPEG standards, the audio and video data comprising a multimedia data stream (or “bit
`
`stream”) are encoded/compressed in an intelligent manner using a compression technique
`
`generally known as “motion coding.” Id. at 1:41-45. More particularly, rather than transmitting
`
`each video frame in its entirety, MPEG uses motion estimation for only those parts of sequential
`
`pictures that vary due to motion, where possible. Id. at 45-48. In general, the picture elements
`
`or “pixels” of a picture are specified relative to those of a previously transmitted reference or
`
`“anchor” picture using differential or “residual” video, as well as so-called “motion vectors” that
`
`specify the location of a 16-by-16 array of pixels or “macroblock” within the current picture
`
`relative to its original location within the anchor picture. Id. at 1:48-55. Computation of the
`
`motion vector(s) for a given macroblock involves an exhaustive search procedure that is very
`
`computationally intensive. Id. at 3:25-39. It was desirable at the time of the invention to
`
`improve this process. Id. at 3:40-67.
`
`35. The inventive solution of the claimed inventions of the ’005 patent provides a
`
`system and method for digital video compression, and, more particularly, to a motion estimation
`
`method and search engine for a digital video encoder that is simpler, faster, and less expensive
`
`than prior art technology, and that permits concurrent motion estimation using multiple
`
`prediction modes. Id. at 1:6-11.
`
`36. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’005 patent and its claims would
`
`understand that the patent’s disclosure and claims are drawn to solving a specific, technical
`
`problem arising in the field of digital video compression. Id. Moreover, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that the claimed subject matter of the ’005 patent presents
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 18 of 43 PageID #: 18
`
`advancements in the field of digital video compression, and more particularly to a motion
`
`estimation method and search engine for a digital video encoder that is simpler, faster, and less
`
`expensive than prior art technology, and that permits concurrent motion estimation using
`
`multiple prediction modes. Id.
`
`37. AT&T makes, uses, offers for sale and sells in the United States and imports into
`
`the United States electronic devices such as U-verse, that practice a method for motion coding an
`
`uncompressed digital video data stream (collectively the “Accused Infringing Devices”).
`
`38. Upon information and belief, the Accused Infringing Devices infringe claim 1 of
`
`the ’005 patent by practicing a method in the exemplary manner described below.
`
`39. The Accused Infringing Devices provide a method for motion coding an
`
`uncompressed digital video data stream. The Accused Infringing Devices receive input video
`
`streams which are then encoded and/or transcoded using at least the H.264 standard. The H.264
`
`standard is a widely used video compression format with decoder support on web browsers, TVs
`
`and other consumer devices. The H.264 standard uses motion compressor and estimator for
`
`motion coding video streams. The Accused Infringing Devices encode video streams using
`
`H.264 encoders.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 19 of 43 PageID #: 19
`
`
`Source: AT&T U-verse Overview, Ahmad Ansari, Director of U-verse STB and Home
`Networking Design (March 13, 2015), p. 4
`
`
`
`
`Source: AT&T U-verse Overview, Ahmad Ansari, Director of U-verse STB and Home
`Networking Design (March 13, 2015), p. 5
`
`
`
`Source: AT&T U-verse Overview, Ahmad Ansari, Director of U-verse STB and Home
`Networking Design (March 13, 2015), p. 6
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 20 of 43 PageID #: 20
`
`
`Source: AT&T U-verse Overview, Ahmad Ansari, Director of U-verse STB and Home
`Networking Design (March 13, 2015), p. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: H.264 Standard (03-2010) at pp. 3-4
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 21 of 43 PageID #: 21
`
`
`Source: https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590a/07au/lectures/rahullarge.pdf
`
`
`40. The Accused Infringing Devices provide a method for comparing pixels of a first
`
`
`
`pixel array (e.g., a macroblock) in a picture currently being coded with pixels of a plurality of
`
`second pixel arrays in at least one reference picture and concurrently performing motion
`
`estimation for each of a plurality of different prediction modes in order to determine which of the
`
`prediction modes is an optimum prediction mode. The H.264 standard uses different motion
`
`estimation modes in inter-frame prediction. These modes are commonly referred to as inter-
`
`frame prediction modes, or inter modes. Each inter mode involves partitioning the current
`
`Macroblock into a different combination of sub blocks, and selecting the optimum motion vector
`
`for the current Macroblock based on the partition. The inter-frame prediction modes, or inter
`
`modes, can be further categorized by the number and position of the reference frames, as well as
`
`the choice of integer pixel, half pixel and quarter pixel values in motion estimation. The
`
`Accused Infringing Devices’ H.264 encoders concurrently perform motion estimation of a
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 22 of 43 PageID #: 22
`
`Macroblock for all inter-modes and select the most optimum prediction mode with least rate
`
`distortion cost.
`
`Mode Decision
`
`16x16 luma Macroblock
`
`Intra Modes
`(For all frames)
`
`• Nine 4x4 Modes
`• Four 16x16 Modes
`
`Inter Modes (Only
`for P and B-frames)
`
`• Macroblock partitions:
`16x16,16x8,8x16,
`8x8,8x4,4x8,4x4
`• Use of reference frames
`• Use of integer, half and
`quarter pixel motion
`estimation
`
`• Each mode (inter or intra) has an associated Rate-Distortion (RD)
`cost.
`• Encoder performs mode decision to select the mode having the least
`RD cost. This process is computationally intensive.
`
`
`
`Source: https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590a/07au/lectures/rahullarge.pdf, p. 30
`
`41. H.264 provides a hierarchical way to partition a Macroblock, with the available
`
`30
`
`partitions shown in the following two figures. An exemplary inter-frame prediction mode, or
`
`inter mode, can be for a Macroblock to be partitioned to encompass a 16x8 sub block on the left,
`
`and two 8x8 sub blocks on the right.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 23 of 43 PageID #: 23
`
`Macroblock Partitions
`
`8x8
`
`8x8
`
`8x8
`
`8x8
`
`16x8
`
`16x8
`
`8x16
`
`8x16
`
`16x16 blocks can
`be broken into
`blocks of sizes
`8x8, 16x8, or 8x16.
`
`16x16
`
`16x16
`
`16x16
`
`4x4
`
`4x4
`
`4x4
`
`4x4
`
`8x4
`
`8x4
`
`8x8
`
`8x8
`
`4x8
`
`4x8
`
`8x8
`
`8x8 blocks can be
`broken into blocks
`of sizes 4x4, 4x8,
`or 8x4.
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590a/07au/lectures/rahullarge.pdf, p. 4
`
`
`4
`
`
`Source: H.264 Standard (03-2010) at p. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 24 of 43 PageID #: 24
`
`
`42. The optimum prediction mode as chosen for the current Macroblock is embedded
`
`in the compressed bit stream of H.264, as shown in the following two syntaxes.
`
`
`
`Source: H.264 Standard (03-2010) at p. 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 25 of 43 PageID #: 25
`
`
`Source: H.264 Standard (03-2010) at p. 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 26 of 43 PageID #: 26
`
`43. The Accused Infringing Devices provide a method for determining which of the
`
`second pixel arrays (e.g., macroblock) constitutes a best match with respect to the first pixel
`
`array (e.g., macroblock) for the optimum prediction mode.
`
`
`Source: B. Juurlink et al., Scalable Parallel Programming Applied to H.264, Chapter 2:
`Understanding the Application: An Overview of the H.264 Standard, p. 12
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`For example, the encoder performs mode decision to select the most optimum
`
`prediction mode with least rate distortion cost.
`
`
`
`
`Source: H.264 Standard (03-2010), p. 100
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 27 of 43 PageID #: 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590a/07au/lectures/rahullarge.pdf, p. 30
`
`
`45. The Accused Infringing Devices provide a method for generating a motion vector
`
`for the first pixel array in response to the determining step. The encoder calculates the
`
`appropriate motion vectors and other data elements represented in the video data stream.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 28 of 43 PageID #: 28
`
`
`Source: B. Juurlink et al., Scalable Parallel Programming Applied to H.264, Chapter 2:
`Understanding the Application: An Overview of the H.264 Standard, p. 12
`
`
`
`
`Source: H.264 Standard (03-2010), p. 151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590a/07au/lectures/rahullarge.pdf, p. 2
`
`46. AT&T has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 1 of the ’005 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 29 of 43 PageID #: 29
`
`in the United States, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing the Accused
`
`Infringing Devices in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`47. AT&T also has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 1 of the ’005
`
`patent by actively inducing others to use, offer for sale, and sell the Accused Infringing Devices.
`
`AT&T’s users, customers, agents or other third parties who use those devices in accordance with
`
`AT&T’s instructions infringe claim 1 of the ’005 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`AT&T intentionally instructs customers to infringe through training videos, demonstrations,
`
`brochures and user guides, such as those located at: www.att.com; forums.att.com;
`
`www.att.com/esupport. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’005 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`48. AT&T also has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 1 of the ’005
`
`patent by offering to commercially distribute, commercially distributing, or importing the
`
`Accused Infringing Devices which devices are used in practicing the processes, or using the
`
`systems, of the ’005 patent, and constitute a material part of the invention. AT&T knows
`
`portions of the Accused Infringing Devices to be especially made or especially adapted for use in
`
`infringement of the ’005 patent, not a staple article, and not a commodity of commerce suitable
`
`for substantial noninfringing use. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’005 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`49. AT&T is on notice of its infringement of the ’005 patent by no later than the filing
`
`and service of this Complaint and by virtue of a previously filed case against AT&T concerning
`
`the ’005 patent. By the time of trial, AT&T will have known and intended (since receiving such
`
`notice) that its continued actions would actively induce and contribute to the infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’005 patent.
`
`
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 30 of 43 PageID #: 30
`
`50. Upon information and belief, AT&T may have infringed and continues to infringe
`
`the ’005 patent through other software and devices utilizing the same or reasonably similar
`
`functionality, including other versions of the Accused Infringing Devices.
`
`51. AT&T’s acts of direct and indirect infringement have caused and continue to
`
`cause damage to Uniloc and Uniloc is entitled to recover damages sustained as a result of
`
`AT&T’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
`
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,016,676
`
`52. The allegations of paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint are incorporated by
`
`reference as though fully set forth herein.
`
`53. The ’676 patent titled, “Method, Network And Control Station For the Two-Way
`
`Alternate Control of Radio Systems Of Different Standards In The Same Frequency Band,”
`
`issued on March 21, 2006. A copy of the ’676 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’676 patent is presumed valid.
`
`Invented by Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., the inventions of the ’676
`
`patent were not well-understood, routine or conventional at the time of the invention. At the
`
`time of invention of the ’676 patent, a national regulation authority determined on what
`
`frequencies, with what transmission power and in accordance with what radio interface standard
`
`a radio system was allowed to transmit. ’676 patent at 1:12-15. There was provided so-called
`
`ISM frequency bands (Industrial Scientific Medical) where radio systems can transmit in the
`
`same frequency band in accordance with different radio interface standards. Id. at 1:15-18. One
`
`example of this is the US radio system IEEE 802.11a and the European ETSI BRAN
`
`HiperLAN/2. Id. at 1:18-20. The two radio systems transmit in the same frequency bands
`
`between 5.5 GHz and 5.875 GHz with approximately the same radio transmission method, but
`
`
`
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00514-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 31 of 43 PageID #: 31
`
`different transmission protocols. Id. at 1:20-23. In the event of interference, prior art systems
`
`were implemented for active switching to another frequency within the permitted frequency
`
`band, for controlling transmission power and for adaptive coding and modulation to reduce
`
`interference. Id. at 1:23-28. These prior art systems suffered from drawbacks. Id. at 1:65-2:10.
`
`For example, prior art system and methods did not make optimum use and spreading possible of
`
`the radio channels over the stations which transmit in accordance with different standards. Id.
`
`The guarantee of the service quality necessary for the multimedia applications is impossible in
`
`the case of interference caused by their own stations or stations of outside systems. Id. at 2:5-8.
`
`In the case of alternating interference, the prior art systems did not work efficiently and occupy a
`
`frequency channel even at low transmission rates. Id. at 2:8-10.
`
`56. The inventive solution of the claimed inventions of the ’676 patent provides an
`
`interface control protocol method that overcomes one or more problems of the prior art and
`
`makes efficient use of radio transmission channels. Id. at 2:11-22. For example, the invention
`
`provides a method that controls alternate use of the common frequency band to provide certain
`
`predefined time intervals for the use of the first and second radio interface standard and allocate
`
`the frequency band alternately to the first radio interface standard and then to the second radio
`
`interface standard in a type of time-division multiplex mode. Id. at 2:51-57. According to