Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00040
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP” or “Plaintiff”) files this original
`
`complaint against Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Huawei Device”) and Huawei Device USA Inc.
`
`(“Huawei USA”), (collectively “Huawei”) alleging, based on its own knowledge as to itself and
`
`its own actions, and based on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is a limited liability company filed under the
`
`laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business at 2815 Joelle Drive, Toledo, Ohio
`
`43617.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Huawei Device Co., Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of China. It has its principal place of business at 8 Shitou Road, North Area, Shenzhen,
`
`518129, China. Huawei Device designs, manufactures, makes, uses, imports into the United States
`
`smartphones and tablets. Huawei Device’s smartphones and tablets are marketed, used, offered
`
`for sale, and/or sold throughout the United States, including within this district.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Huawei Device USA Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`the State of Texas. Its principal place of business is at 5700 Tennyson Pkwy, Suite 600, Plano,
`
`Texas 75024. Huawei USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Huawei Device, and oversees
`
`domestic sales and distribution of Huawei’s consumer electronics products, including the products
`
`accused of infringement in this case.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-3 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`5.
`
`This is an action for infringement of United States patents arising under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).
`
`Huawei is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction due at
`
`least to Huawei’s substantial business in this forum, including (i) at least a portion of the
`
`infringements alleged herein; or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`individuals in Texas and in this district.
`
`8.
`
`Specifically, Huawei intends to and does business in Texas, directly or through
`
`intermediaries and offers its products or services, including those accused herein of infringement,
`
`to customers and potential customers located in Texas, including in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Huawei USA maintains a regular and established place of business in this District,
`
`including its North American Headquarters at 5700 Tennyson Pkwy, Suite 600, Plano, Texas
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3
`
`75024.1 Huawei USA may be served with process through its registered agent for service in Texas:
`
`CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper against Huawei Device pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because
`
`venue is proper in any judicial district against a foreign corporation. See In re HTC Corp., 889
`
`F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper against Huawei USA in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1400(b) because it has maintained established and regular places of business in this District and
`
`has committed acts of patent infringement in the District. See In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355,
`
`1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`12.
`
`Since 2001, Huawei has maintained its North American headquarters in Plano,
`
`Texas.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`13.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-12 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`14.
`
`GTP was founded in 2013 by Dr. Timothy Pryor, the sole inventor of the five
`
`Asserted Patents. He currently resides in Toledo, Ohio. Dr. Pryor received a B.S. in Engineering
`
`Physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1962, where he was also a member of the Army Reserve
`
`Officer in Training (ROTC) program. Upon graduation, he was commissioned as a Second
`
`Lieutenant in the United States Army. Dr. Pryor continued his education, obtaining an M.S. in
`
`Physics from the University of Illinois (1964) and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`University of Windsor (1972).
`
`1 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Contact Us, available at https://www.huawei.com/en/contact-
`us (last accessed January 18, 2020).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4
`
`15.
`
`Dr. Pryor rose to the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army before his honorable
`
`discharge in 1967. Dr. Pryor served at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground and in Italy,
`
`commanding missile teams supporting the Italian armed forces on a NATO anti-aircraft missile
`
`site, charged with guarding nuclear warheads and providing technical assistance to NATO.
`
`16.
`
`Dr. Pryor is a named inventor on over 200 patents and patent applications. For the
`
`past four decades, he has been a pioneer in laser sensing technology, motion sensing technology,
`
`machine vision technology, and camera-based interactive technology.
`
`17.
`
`Since the 1970s, Dr. Pryor has founded and led three other companies: two small
`
`operating companies in the automotive parts inspection and robotics businesses, one company that
`
`developed new forms of vehicle instrument panel controls, and co-founded another company that
`
`utilized camera-based sensors for physical therapy. Dr. Pryor is responsible for a significant
`
`amount of the research and development for the technologies at these companies.
`
`18.
`
`The patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924 patent”), 7,933,431 (the
`
`“’431 patent”), 8,878,949 (the “’949 patent”), and 8,553,079 (the “’079 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”), are generally directed to innovations in using mobile phone cameras to assist
`
`a user to interact with their smartphone, including, for example, but not limited to unlocking their
`
`phone, taking and using photos or videos, and providing other functions.
`
`19.
`
`Dr. Pryor conceived of the inventions embodied in the Asserted Patents in the mid-
`
`to late-1990s, when he was working on a variety of different projects related to imaging and
`
`computer control. Dr. Pryor describes the process as a brainstorm that led to several breakthrough
`
`moments, ultimately resulting in the Asserted Patents.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 5
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`20.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-19 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`21.
`
`Huawei infringed the asserted patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell,
`
`and importing its smartphones and tablets. Exemplary accused products include, but are not
`
`limited to, the Huawei MatePad Pro, Huawei MatePad (including, at least, the T8 and T8 Kid’s
`
`Edition), Huawei Mate Xs, Mate 40 Series, Mate 30 Series, Mate X Series, Mate 20 Series, Porsche
`
`Design Mate RS, Mate 9 Series, Mate 8 Series, Mate SE, Mate S, G9 Series, Ascend G8 Series,
`
`P30 Series, P20 Series, P Smart, P10 Series, P9 Series, P8 Series, Y635, Y560, Ascend Y540, and
`
`Y360, (collectively the “Accused Products”).
`
`EXAMPLES OF HUAWEI’S MARKETING OF THE ACCUSED FEATURES
`
`22.
`
`The Accused Products have features including, but not limited to, at least the
`
`following: Tracking Shot, Air Scroll, Smiling Face Capture, Target Tracking, Picture Face
`
`Recognition, Selfie Focus, Portrait Mode, Gesture Shots, Facial Recognition, and Fingerprint
`
`Recognition (the “Features”).
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`The Features drive the popularity and sales of the Accused Products.
`
`For example, Huawei has marketed the Accused Products using Tracking Shot to
`
`keep subjects in focus when using the camera, as described in the following screenshot from
`
`Huawei’s website:2
`
`2 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Mate40 Pro|5G Leaping Further Ahead, available at
`https://consumer.huawei.com/en/phones/mate40-pro/ (last accessed January 18, 2020).
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6
`
`25.
`
`Huawei has marketed its Accused Products using Air Scroll as a way to
`
`conveniently control your phone, as described in the following screenshot from Huawei’s website:3
`
`3 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Air Scroll: A Touchscreen You Can Direct, available at
`https://consumer.huawei.com/en/emui10-1/tips/get-familiar-list/article7/ (last accessed January
`18, 2020).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7
`
`26.
`
`Huawei has marketed its Accused Products using biometric unlocking functions,
`
`such as facial recognition, to unlock the phone as a superior security feature as described in the
`
`following screenshot from Huawei’s website:4
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,194,924
`
`27.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-26 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`4 Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Mate30 Pro
`available
`5G,
`https://consumer.huawei.com/en/phones/mate30-pro-5g/ (last accessed January 18, 2020).
`7
`
`at
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8
`
`28.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’924 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’924 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’924 patent on June 5, 2012. A copy of the ’924 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`29.
`
`The ’924 patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming or
`
`Other Devices.” The ’924 patent describes using a camera output such that the handheld device’s
`
`computer performs a control function on the device, such as acquiring or taking images, reading
`
`things, determining data, transmitting data, printing data, and actuating a vehicle or function.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`The claims of the ’924 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Huawei has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 1 of the ’924 patent.
`
`32.
`
`Huawei has infringed the ’924 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and importing the Accused Products.
`
`33.
`
`The Accused Products are handheld devices with a housing and a computer,
`
`including but not limited to one or more System-on-Chips.
`
`34.
`
`The Accused Products have at least one first camera oriented to view a user of the
`
`Accused Product. The first camera has an output when used.
`
`35.
`
`The Accused Products have at least one second camera oriented to view an object
`
`other than the user. The second camera has an output when used.
`
`36.
`
`The first and second cameras of the Accused Products have non-overlapping fields
`
`of view.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 9
`
`37.
`
`The computer of the Accused Products is adapted to perform a control function,
`
`such as the control functions associated with the Features, based on an output of either the first
`
`camera or the second camera.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Huawei alleged
`
`above. Thus, Huawei is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that compensates it for such infringements,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by
`
`this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’924 patent.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’924 patent.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Huawei had knowledge of the ’924 patent at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`Huawei has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’924 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’924 patent. Huawei has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’924 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Huawei took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’924 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’924 patent. Such
`
`steps by Huawei included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Features in the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising
`
`and promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions
`
`that guide end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner.
`
`Huawei performed these steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10
`
`’924 patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Huawei was
`
`aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the
`
`’924 patent. Huawei’s direct infringement of the ’924 patent was willful, intentional, deliberate,
`
`or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,933,431
`
`43.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-42 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`44.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’431 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’431 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’431 patent on April 26, 2011. A copy of the ’431 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`45.
`
`The ’431 patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or
`
`Other Devices.” The ’431 patent describes a method for a user to control a handheld device using
`
`gestures that are observed by a sensor on the handheld device.
`
`46.
`
`Huawei has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 7 of the ’431 patent. Huawei has infringed the ’431 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering to sell, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`The claims of the ’431 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The Accused Products are handheld computers.
`
`The Accused Products have a housing.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 11
`
`50.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more cameras associated with their housing.
`
`The one or more cameras obtain images of objects using reflected light from the objects.
`
`51.
`
`A computer, including but not limited to at least one System on Chip, resides within
`
`the housing of the Accused Products. The computer analyzes images obtained by the one or more
`
`images to determine information about a position or movement of the object.
`
`52.
`
`The Accused Products use information about the object to control a function of the
`
`Accused Products, such as the functions associated with the Features.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Huawei alleged
`
`above. Thus, Huawei is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’431 Patent.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’431 patent.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Huawei had knowledge of the ’431 patent at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`Huawei has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’431 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’431 patent. Huawei has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’431 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Huawei took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’431 patent, including, for example, Claim 7 of the ’431 patent. Such
`
`steps by Huawei included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 12
`
`parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of
`
`the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions that guide end-users and
`
`other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Huawei performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’431 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Huawei was aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the ’431 patent. Huawei’s direct
`
`and indirect infringement of the ’431 patent was willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious
`
`disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,878,949
`
`58.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-57 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`59.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’949 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’949 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’949 patent on November 4, 2014. A copy of the ’949 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`60.
`
`The ’949 Patent is titled “Camera Based Interaction and Instruction.” The ’949
`
`patent describes a device that allows a user to control the device using gestures registered by the
`
`front-facing camera and an electro-optical sensor.
`
`61.
`
`The claims of the ’949 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 13
`
`62.
`
` Huawei has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at
`
`least Claim 1 of the ’949 patent. Huawei infringed the ’949 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`The Accused Products are portable devices.
`
`The Accused Products have a housing. The housing has a forward-facing portion
`
`that includes an electro-optical sensor that has a field of view and a digital camera.
`
`65.
`
`Within the housing is a processing unit including, but not limited to, at least one
`
`System on Chip. The processing unit is coupled to the electro-optical sensor.
`
`66.
`
`The processing unit in the Accused Products has been programmed to determine if
`
`a gesture has been performed in the electro-optical sensors field of view based on an output from
`
`the electro-optical sensor.
`
`67.
`
`The processing unit of the Accused Products controls the digital camera in response
`
`to the gesture performed. Such gestures are used by the Features.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Huawei alleged
`
`above. Thus, Huawei is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’949 Patent.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’949 patent.
`
`71.
`
`Huawei had knowledge of the ’949 patent at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 14
`
`72.
`
`Huawei has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’949 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’949 patent. Huawei has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’949 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Huawei took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’949 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’949 patent. Such
`
`steps by Huawei included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of
`
`the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions that guide end-users and
`
`other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Huawei performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’949 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Huawei was aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the ’949 patent. Huawei’s direct
`
`and indirect infringement of the ’949 patent was willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious
`
`disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,553,079
`
`73.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-72 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`74.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’079 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’079 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 15
`
`Office duly issued the ’079 patent on October 8, 2013. A copy of the ’079 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`75.
`
`The ’079 patent is titled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications.”
`
`The ’079 patent describes methods and apparatuses related to determining gestures illuminated by
`
`a light source of a computer by using a camera housed in the computer.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`The claims of the ’079 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Huawei has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 11 of the ’079 patent. Huawei has infringed the ’079 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`The Accused Products are computer apparatuses.
`
`The Accused Products contain a light source that will illuminate a human body part
`
`within a work volume.
`
`80.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more cameras. The one or more cameras have
`
`a fixed relation to the light source. The one or more cameras of the Accused Products are oriented
`
`to observe gestures performed by a human body part.
`
`81.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more processors including, but not limited to,
`
`one or more System on Chips, that have been programmed to determine a gesture performed based
`
`on output from the one or more cameras.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Huawei alleged
`
`above. Thus, Huawei is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 16
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’079 patent.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’079 patent.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`Huawei had knowledge of the ’079 patent at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`Huawei has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’079 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’079 patent. Huawei has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’079 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Huawei took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’079 patent, including, for example, Claim 11 of the ’079 patent. Such
`
`steps by Huawei included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of
`
`the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions that guide end-users and
`
`other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Huawei performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’079 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Huawei was aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the ’079 patent. Huawei’s
`
`inducement is ongoing.
`
`87.
`
`Huawei’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’079 patent was willful,
`
`intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 17
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`GTP requests that the Court find in its favor and against Huawei, and that the Court grant
`
`GTP the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patents have been infringed,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Huawei or all others acting in concert
`
`therewith;
`
`b.
`
`Judgment that Huawei accounts for and pays to GTP all damages to and costs
`
`incurred by GTP because of Huawei’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
`
`herein;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Huawei’s infringements be found willful, and that the Court award
`
`treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`d.
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Huawei’s
`
`infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`e.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award GTP its reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`f.
`
`All other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 18
`
`Dated: February 4, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`Jonathan L. Hardt
`Texas State Bar No. 24039906
`Chad Ennis
`Texas State Bar No. 24045834
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`327 Congress Ave., Suite 490
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`jhardt@wsltrial.com
`cennis@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner
`Pennsylvania State Bar No. 308996
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 512-543-1373
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Gesture Technology
`Partners, LLC
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 4, 2021, the undersigned caused a copy
`
`of the foregoing document to be served on Huawei through the Court’s ECF System.
`
`/s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`
`19
`
`