Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 131
`
`
`
`PLECTRUM LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`C.A. NO. 4:17-CV-00141-ALM
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Plectrum LLC (“Plectrum”) files this first amended complaint against Oracle
`
`Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendant” or “Oracle”), 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.
`
`Plectrum is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
`
`Texas, with its principal place of business at 2325 Oak Alley, Tyler, Texas, 75703.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Oracle Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`state of Delaware. Oracle Corporation can be served with process by serving its registered agent:
`
`Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th
`
`Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Oracle America, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`state of Delaware. Oracle America, Inc. can be served with process by serving its registered
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 132
`
`agent: Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211
`
`E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`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).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant has transacted business in this district and has committed, by
`
`itself or in concert with others, acts of patent infringement in this district. Additionally, Oracle
`
`maintains one or more offices in this district, including at 7460 Warren Parkway, Suite 300,
`
`Frisco, TX 75034
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to Defendant’s
`
`substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged
`
`herein; and/or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of
`
`conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in
`
`Texas and in this district.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`The patents-in-suit generally pertain to communications networks and the
`
`technology that enables computers and other network devices to communicate with each other.
`
`The technology disclosed by two of the patents, 6,205,149 and 5,978,951, was developed by
`
`engineers at 3Com Corporation (“3Com”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 133
`
`8.
`
` 3Com was an industry pioneer and leader for computer network infrastructure
`
`products and ideas. Formed in Massachusetts in 1979 by some of the key figures in the early
`
`days of networking (a co-founder, Robert Metcalfe, was one of the inventors of Ethernet), 3Com
`
`focused on developing networking technology in the then-nascent personal computer market.
`
`3Com’s name is derived from “Computers, Communication, and Compatibility,” which
`
`emphasized the company’s focus on developing industry standards—and the corresponding
`
`hardware and software—in order for computers to communicate across wide-area networks, such
`
`as the Internet, and local-area networks, such as Ethernet.
`
`9.
`
`At the time of 3Com’s founding, few organizations, including businesses,
`
`universities, and government institutions, had more than a single mainframe computer with a
`
`limited number of workstations. At that time, the late 1970’s, networking multiple computers
`
`together, whether in the same building or spread throughout the country, was nearly non-existent.
`
`The founders of 3Com, however, foresaw the rise of personal computers and the need to connect
`
`those computers to peripherals, such as printers or modems, and to external networks like the
`
`Internet.
`
`10.
`
`3Com developed and sold a wide range of networking products, such as switches,
`
`routers, firewalls, and modems, and its engineers developed many aspects of the networking
`
`technology still in use today. These developments resulted in over 1400 issued patents, including
`
`the two aforementioned patents that are asserted in this suit. 3Com was acquired by Hewlett-
`
`Packard Company (“HP”) in 2010 and ceased operating as a separate entity at that time.
`
`11.
`
`The other patent asserted in this case, U.S. Patent No. 6,751,677, discloses
`
`technology developed by engineers at HP. Founded in 1939, HP was started in a car garage in
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 134
`
`Palo Alto, California and was instrumental in the growth and development of computer
`
`technology and Silicon Valley itself.
`
`12.
`
`HP is known worldwide for its computer and computer peripherals, such as
`
`printers and scanners. The Hewlett-Packard 9100A was launched in 1968 and is considered to be
`
`the first personal computer, and HP’s inkjet and laser printers are among the most popular in the
`
`world. In addition to those products, HP also develops and manufactures networking products,
`
`servers, and software. Around the same time HP released its first personal computer, it also
`
`began offering servers for businesses. HP servers and other network equipment, such as switches
`
`and firewalls, are used by businesses worldwide. HP is one of the most prolific filers of patents
`
`in the United States, with more than 23,000 patents in its portfolio.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`13.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,978,951 (“the ‘951 Patent”), titled “High Speed Cache
`
`Management Unit for use in a Bridge/Router,” teaches hardware-based systems and methods for
`
`increasing data-transfer speeds, and minimizing latency, across communications networks.
`
`Typically, much of the routing functionality, such as reading the header information, was
`
`handled via software. Using software to perform this function, however, can create latency in the
`
`network, causing a slowdown in the delivery of the data units.
`
`14.
`
`To solve this latency issue, the ‘951 Patent utilizes a hardware-based cache
`
`management unit to streamline the reading of the header information, and thereby increasing the
`
`data transmission speed. The cache management unit stores data relating to the various network
`
`addresses associated with the particular network. This address data is then compared with the
`
`header information for the data unit, and, if matching, the system sends the data unit to the
`
`appropriate destination, all at superior speeds compared to a traditional software-based system.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 135
`
`15.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,205,149 (“the ‘149 Patent”), titled “Quality of Service
`
`Control Mechanism and Apparatus,” teaches systems and methods for utilizing Quality of
`
`Service (“QoS”) processing control within a communications network. Certain types of data sent
`
`across a network, such as video, will be significantly impaired if there is a delay, while other
`
`types of data, such as email, will not suffer if there is a short delay. In order to minimize these
`
`issues, specific types of data can be given priority to help ensure timely transfer.
`
`16.
`
`Each data unit transmitted across a network includes a header portion, which
`
`contains information for handling that data unit. This header data can include a “QoS priority
`
`indicator,” which informs the transmitting and receiving devices the priority level for the data
`
`unit. Prior to the invention described in the ‘149 Patent, however, use of QoS to prioritize data
`
`units was not effectively implemented. The ‘149 Patent provides systems and methods to
`
`improve QoS processing, resulting in enhanced performance of the network.
`
`17.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,751,677 (“the ‘677 Patent”), titled “Method and
`
`Apparatus For Allowing a Secure and Transparent Communication Between a User Device and
`
`Servers of a Data Access Network System via a Firewall and a Gateway,” teaches a method for
`
`securely communicating across a network that is less complex than a traditional firewall. In a
`
`typical communications network, firewalls are used to control external access to and from the
`
`servers to improve security and prevent unauthorized intrusions, such as a hacker.
`
`18.
`
`The ‘677 Patent uses a number of dynamically assigned ports to connect a user
`
`device, such as a PC, with a target server, such as a secure website. In addition, the ‘677 Patent
`
`utilizes “proxifying” the communication request sent by the user device, which allows for a
`
`single, end-to-end connection with the target server.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 136
`
`COUNT I
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,978,951
`
`19.
`
`On November 2, 1999, the ‘951 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention entitled “High Speed Cache Management
`
`Unit For Use in a Bridge/Router.”
`
`20.
`
`Plectrum is the owner of the ‘951 Patent, with all substantive rights in and to that
`
`patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘951 Patent
`
`against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`and/or offered for sale, within the United States, network switches and/or routers that perform a
`
`lookup operation on a generated hash function to identify the matching destination address
`
`(“accused products”). Defendant’s accused products include, for example, its ES1-24 series
`
`products:
`
`(Source: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/networking/ethernet/switch-es1-24/opus24-
`
`
`
`es1-24-switch-1968242.pdf)
`
`22.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ‘951 Patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 137
`
`23.
`
`Oracle has infringed the ‘951 Patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling or offering for sale systems utilizing a method for
`
`selecting an output port eligible to be used for transmission of a frame received at a computer
`
`network device, wherein said computer network device has at least one input port and a plurality
`
`of output ports and said received frame has a source address and a received destination address.
`
`24.
`
`The accused products include receiving said frame at one of said at least one input
`
`port of said computer network device.
`
`25.
`
`The accused products include parsing said received destination address from said
`
`received frame.
`
`26.
`
`The accused products include processing said received destination address with a
`
`code generator to generate a coded address. For example, the ES1-24 Switch performs a hashing
`
`function on the outer headers, which include L2 header information such as Source and
`
`Destination MAC addresses, of the received packet to distribute it to the egress ports. Hence, the
`
`hashed MAC Source/Destination addresses can be construed as coded address:
`
`
`(Source: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E39109_01/html/E26351/z4007fdf1407619.html#scrolltoc)
`
`
`(Source:http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E39109_01/html/E26351/z40003c01407121.html#scrolltoc)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 138
`
`27.
`
`The accused products include comparing said coded address to a value associated
`
`with a row within a cache.
`
`28.
`
`The accused products include, in the event of a match between said coded address
`
`and said value associated with said row, comparing said received destination address with a
`
`cached destination address associated with a first entry in said row.
`
`29.
`
`The accused products include, in the event of a match between said received
`
`destination address and said cached destination address associated with said first entry, reading a
`
`port mask associated with said first entry to identify at least one port from said plurality of output
`
`ports which is eligible for transmission of said received frame
`
`30.
`
`Plectrum has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plectrum 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.
`
`31.
`
`Plectrum and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`‘951 Patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,205,149
`
`32.
`
`On March 20, 2001, the ‘149 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention entitled “Quality of Service Control
`
`Mechanism and Apparatus.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 139
`
`33.
`
`Plectrum is the owner of the ‘149 Patent, with all substantive rights in and to that
`
`patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘149 Patent
`
`against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`and/or offered for sale, within the United States, network switches and/or routers that utilize, for
`
`example, Content Addressable Memory (“CAM”) or Ternary Content Addressable Memory
`
`(“TCAM”), and Access Control Lists (“ACL”) to perform a single look-up with a quality-of-
`
`service variable and routing information (“accused products”). The accused products include, for
`
`example, its ES1-24 series products:
`
`(Source: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/networking/ethernet/switch-es1-24/opus24-
`
`
`
`es1-24-switch-1968242.pdf)
`
`35.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ‘149 Patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`36.
`
`Oracle has infringed the ‘149 Patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling or offering for sale systems for utilizing a method for
`
`assigning at least one Quality of Service Ethernet frame in a telecommunications device.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 140
`
`37.
`
`The accused products include receiving said Ethernet frame at a network interface
`
`module of said device configured for Ethernet type traffic, said received Ethernet frame having a
`
`header.
`
`38.
`
`The accused products include determining if said received Ethernet frame
`
`includes both positively identified source and destination addresses, wherein said determining if
`
`said received Ethernet frame includes both positively identified source and destination addresses
`
`includes comparing a unique identifier with a first portion of a destination address selected from
`
`the header, wherein said unique identifier is associated with the bridge/router, and comparing a
`
`second portion of the destination address with a predetermined range of values in the event that
`
`the unique identifier matches the first portion of the destination address.
`
`39.
`
`The accused products include determining, in the event that the second portion of
`
`the destination address is within the predetermined range of values, whether a protocol type of
`
`said received Ethernet frame is an IP protocol type, wherein said determining whether said
`
`protocol type of said Ethernet frame is an IP protocol type includes comparing the protocol type
`
`with at least one predetermined value.
`
`40.
`
`The accused products include associating said received Ethernet frame with a
`
`flow in the event said received Ethernet frame includes both positively identified source and
`
`destination addresses.
`
`41.
`
`The accused products include, in the event said protocol type of said received
`
`Ethernet frame is an IP protocol type and said received Ethernet frame is associated with a flow,
`
`indexing into a memory within said device using selected portions of said header to obtain, via a
`
`single lookup, both said at least one quality of service variable and routing information
`
`associated with said received Ethernet frame.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 141
`
`42.
`
`Plectrum has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plectrum 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.
`
`43.
`
`Plectrum and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`‘149 Patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,751,677
`
`44.
`
`On June 15, 2004, the ‘677 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention entitled “Method and Apparatus For
`
`Allowing a Secure and Transparent Communication Between a User Device and Servers of a
`
`Data Access Network System via a Firewall and a Gateway.”
`
`45.
`
`Plectrum is the owner of the ‘677 Patent, with all substantive rights in and to that
`
`patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘677 Patent
`
`against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`and/or offered for sale, within the United States, network switches, routers, and/or firewalls that
`
`include a dynamic Network Address Translation of the user IP address and the capability of
`
`performing dynamic Port Address Translation (“accused products”). Defendant’s accused
`
`products include, for example, its Virtual Network Services products:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 142
`
`(Source:http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E48586_01/html/E48588/z400054f1397714.html#scrol
`
`
`
`ltoc)
`
`47.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ‘677 Patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`48.
`
`Oracle has infringed the ‘677 Patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling or offering for sale systems utilizing a method of
`
`allowing a secure and transparent communication between a user device and servers of a data
`
`access network system via a firewall and a router.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 143
`
`49.
`
`The accused products include designating a plurality of ports in the firewall for
`
`the router, each corresponding to one of a number of ports in the router, wherein each of the
`
`router ports can be dynamically assigned to correspond to the port of one of the servers.
`
`50.
`
`The accused products include proxifying an object reference referring to a target
`
`server of the servers which is to be accessed by a user request by replacing the IP address and the
`
`port number of the target server in the object reference with a dynamically assigned router port
`
`and the IP address of the router.
`
`51.
`
`The accused products include mapping the dynamically assigned router port and
`
`the router IP address to the port and IP address of the target server.
`
`52.
`
`The accused products include sending the proxified object reference back to the
`
`user device such that the user device uses it to issue the user request to access the target server
`
`via the router in order to allow secure connection between the user device and the target server to
`
`be established without requiring the user request to expose the IP address and port of the target
`
`server at the route.
`
`53.
`
`Plectrum has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plectrum 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.
`
`Plectrum and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`‘677 Patent.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 144
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`55.
`
`Defendant has also directly infringed the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents by
`
`exercising direction or control over the use of the accused products by its customers. When
`
`Defendant contracts with the customer to provide network services and equipment, including the
`
`accused products, Defendant is putting the accused products into service and conditions the
`
`benefit received by each customer from using the accused products (which utilize the methods
`
`taught by the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents), such benefit including improved network
`
`functionality, only if the accused products are used in the manner prescribed by Defendant. Use
`
`of the accused products in such manner infringes the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents in the United States.
`
`Defendant has induced the end-users, Defendant’s customers, to directly infringe (literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents) the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents by using the accused
`
`products. Defendant took active steps, directly and/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 patents-in-suit, including, for example, claim 1 of the ‘149
`
`Patent, claim 1 of the ‘951 Patent, and claim 1 of the ‘677 Patent. Such steps by Defendant
`
`included, among other things, advising or directing customers and end-users to use the accused
`
`products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of the accused products in
`
`an infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide users to use the accused
`
`products in an infringing manner. Defendant performed these steps, which constitute induced
`
`infringement, with the knowledge of the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents and with the knowledge
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 145
`
`that the induced acts would constitute infringement. Additionally, Defendant provides network
`
`management services, which help Defendant’s customers optimize the networks utilizing the
`
`accused products. This also induces end-users to use the accused products in a manner that
`
`infringes ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents. Defendant was and is aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the accused products by Defendant’s customers would infringe the ‘149, ‘951,
`
`and ‘677 Patents. Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents. Defendant has contributed to the direct infringement of the ‘149,
`
`‘951, and ‘677 Patents by the end-user of the accused products. The accused products have
`
`special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no
`
`substantial uses other than ones that infringe the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents, including, for
`
`example, claim 1 of the ‘149 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘951 Patent, and claim 1 of the ‘677 Patent..
`
`The special features include the use of CAMs or TCAMs and ACL lists in a manner that
`
`infringes the ‘149 Patent, as described above. The special features also include the ability to
`
`perform a lookup operation on a generated hash function to identify the matching destination
`
`address is a manner that infringes the ‘951 Patent, as described above. The special features also
`
`include a dynamic Network Address Translation of the user IP address and/or the capability of
`
`performing dynamic Port Address Translation in a manner that infringes the ‘677 Patent, as
`
`described above. The special features constitute a material part of the invention of one or more
`
`of the claims of the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents and are not staple articles of commerce suitable
`
`for substantial non-infringing use. Defendant’s contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant also has knowledge of the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents at least as of
`
`the date when it was notified of the filing of this action. Despite this knowledge, Defendant
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 146
`
`continues to make, have made, use, import, provide, supply, distribute, sell, and/or offer for sale
`
`the accused products.
`
`59.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of
`
`others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of others), despite there
`
`being a high probability that Defendant infringes the patents of others, and thus has been
`
`willfully blind of Plectrum’s patent rights.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of infringing a
`
`valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by Defendant.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ‘149, ‘951, and ‘677 Patents
`
`is, has been, and continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of
`
`Plectrum’s rights under the patent.
`
`62.
`
`Plectrum has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plectrum 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.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plectrum hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plectrum requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the
`
`Court grant Plectrum the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the ‘149, ‘951, & ‘677 Patents have been
`
`infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant and/or all others
`
`acting in concert therewith;
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 147
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in
`
`concert therewith from infringement of the ‘149, ‘951, & ‘677 Patents; or, in the alternative, an
`
`award of a reasonable ongoing royalty for future infringement of the ‘149, ‘951, & ‘677 Patents
`
`by such entities;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to Plectrum all damages to and
`
`costs incurred by Plectrum because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct
`
`complained of herein, including an award of all increased damages to which Plectrum is entitled
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`d.
`
`That Plectrum be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
`
`damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`e.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Plectrum its reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`f.
`
`That Plectrum be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`
`Dated: May 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Zachariah S. Harrington
`Matthew J. Antonelli
`Texas Bar No. 24068432
`matt@ahtlawfirm.com
`Zachariah S. Harrington
`Texas Bar No. 24057886
`zac@ahtlawfirm.com
`Larry D. Thompson, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 24051428
`larry@ahtlawfirm.com
`Michael D. Ellis
`Texas Bar No. 24081586
`michael@ahtlawfirm.com
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 148
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON
`& THOMPSON LLP
`4306 Yoakum Blvd., Ste. 450
`Houston, TX 77006
`(713) 581-3000
`
`
`
`
`
`Stafford Davis
`State Bar No. 24054605
`THE STAFFORD DAVIS FIRM, PC
`The People's Petroleum Building
`102 N College Ave., 13th Floor
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`(903) 593-7000
`sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plectrum LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-00141-ALM Document 15 Filed 05/17/17 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 149
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 17th day of May, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
`
`to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Zachariah S. Harrington
`Zachariah S. Harrington
`
`19
`
`