Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-692
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`DSS Technology
`Management, Inc.
`
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff DSS Technology Management, Inc., files this Original Complaint for patent
`
`
`
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated (Defendant or
`
`“Qualcomm”) and alleges as follows:
`
`
`I.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff DSS Technology Management, Inc. (Plaintiff or “DSS”) is a corporation
`
`that maintains offices in Plano, Texas where it engages in product development and marketing
`
`efforts.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, California 92121.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated may be served via its registered agent Prentice Hall Corp. System, 211
`
`E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant
`
`is doing business, directly and/or
`
`through subsidiaries or
`
`intermediaries, in the United States and, more particularly, in the State of Texas and the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, by designing, marketing, testing, making, using, selling, importing, and/or
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 1  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2
`
`offering for sale products and systems that infringe the patent claims involved in this action or by
`
`transacting other business in this District.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285.
`
`Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Furthermore, venue is proper because Defendant
`
`conducts business within this District and/or solicit and establish relationships with entities
`
`within this District, which include the making, importation, sell, and/or offering for sale of
`
`Infringing Products as discussed below. Each act of Defendant’s directly or indirectly infringing
`
`conduct in this District gives rise to proper venue.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has conducted
`
`and does conduct business within the State of Texas. Defendant, directly or through
`
`intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ship, distribute, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and advertise products containing semiconductors that infringe the patent claims involved in this
`
`action. Such conduct occurs in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of their semiconductor
`
`products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it will be purchased by
`
`consumers in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. The
`
`Infringing Products have been and continue to be imported into and purchased by consumers in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant has committed the tort of patent infringement within
`
`the United States, the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 2  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3
`
`7.
`
`Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of patent infringement
`
`and/or has induced acts of patent infringement by others in this district, the State of Texas, and
`
`elsewhere in the United States. Defendant maintain offices in Texas
`
`8.
`
`DSS maintains offices in the Eastern District of Texas, where employees are
`
`engaged in marketing and engineering efforts directed toward developing products based on the
`
`intellectual property, including but not limited, that at issue in this case.
`
`
`
` GENERAL ALLEGATIONS III.
`
`9.
`
`On October 12, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”), titled “Metal Plug Local
`
`Interconnect,” to Ting P. Yen. A true and correct copy of the ’924 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`10.
`
`On August 31, 2004, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 (“the ’552 Patent”), titled “Structure Having Reduced
`
`Lateral Plug Erosion,” to James E. Nulty and Christopher J. Petti. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’552 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ’924 Patent and the ’552 Patent and
`
`owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’924 Patent and the ’552 Patent, including all
`
`rights to sue and recover for past and future infringement.
`
`
`
` QUALCOMM’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’924 PATENT IV.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant has infringed and continue to infringe, directly, and/or through the
`
`inducement of others, the claimed methods of the ’924 Patent by making, using, importing,
`
`exporting, selling, and/or offering for sale the Infringing Products.
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 3  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct.
`
`Defendant is, therefore, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates Plaintiff for
`
`Defendant’s infringement, 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.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant, directly or through intermediaries, is liable for infringing one or more
`
`claims of the ’924 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant has failed to obtain permission from DSS to make, use, offer to sell,
`
`sell, or import products embodying the claims in the ’924 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant has been and is now directly infringing the ’924 Patent by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Infringing
`
`Products, or consumer products that contain Infringing Products, that either structurally embody
`
`one or more claims of the ’924 Patent or are manufactured using the processes embodied in one
`
`or more claims of the ’924 Patent. Qualcomm also has been and now is inducing others, such as
`
`manufacturers and/or retailers of products incorporating Qualcomm’s infringing semiconductors,
`
`to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’924 Patent by using, selling, offering for sale, or
`
`importing products made by processes embodied in, or that otherwise embody, one or more
`
`claims of the ’924 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`Qualcomm directly or through intermediaries has infringed and continues to
`
`infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’924 Patent
`
`by making, using, making available for another’s use, offering to license or licensing in the
`
`United States, selling or offering to sell, and/or importing the Infringing Products. By way of
`
`example only, Qualcomm has directly infringed and continues to infringe, in addition to other
`
`claims, at least claim 1 of the ’924 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 4  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5
`
`United States, without DSS’s authority, products such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 series,
`
`the MDM92335, and all devices made via a 28 or 20 nanometer process (the “Infringing
`
`Products”). Qualcomm’s infringing activities include importing, offering for sale, and/or selling
`
`the Infringing Products in the United States. Qualcomm also infringes the ’924 Patent by selling
`
`and offering to sell the Infringing Products directly and via sales representatives, distributors,
`
`and resellers to consumers, businesses, distributors, and resellers. Qualcomm’s infringement of
`
`the ’924 Patent has caused substantial damage to DSS. Qualcomm’s infringing activities violate
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`18.
`
`Qualcomm directly or through intermediaries has and continues to induce
`
`infringement (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) of one or more claims of the
`
`’924 Patent. Qualcomm’s deliberate actions include, but are not limited to, actively marketing
`
`to, encouraging use by, and instructing consumers, businesses, distributors, resellers, sales
`
`representatives, to use, promote, market, distribute, and/or sell the Infringing Products. Plaintiff
`
`contends that Qualcomm aided, instructed, or otherwise acted with the intent to cause acts by
`
`consumers, businesses, distributors, resellers, and sales representatives that would result in direct
`
`infringement of the ’924 Patent. At least as to the time of this filing, Qualcomm knew of the
`
`’924 Patent, and Qualcomm knows, or at least should know, that Qualcomm’s actions would
`
`result in infringement of the ’924 Patent. By way of example only, Qualcomm has induced
`
`infringement and continues to induce infringement of, in addition to other claims of, at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’924 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States,
`
`without DSS’s authority, products such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 series, the
`
`MDM92335, and all devices made via a 28 or 20 nanometer process. These actions, individually
`
`and collectively, have induced and continue to induce the direct infringement of the ’924 Patent
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 5  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6
`
`by consumers, businesses, distributors, resellers, and sales representatives. Qualcomm’s
`
`infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`19.
`
`Qualcomm, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to cause, irreparable
`
`injury and damages to Plaintiff for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined
`
`by this Court, Qualcomm will continue to infringe the ’924 Patent.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’552 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, directly, and/or through the
`
`inducement of others, the claimed apparatus of the ’552 Patent by making, using, importing,
`
`exporting, selling, and/or offering for sale the Infringing Products.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct.
`
`Defendants are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates Plaintiff
`
`for Defendants’ infringement, 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.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant, directly or through intermediaries, is liable for infringing one or more
`
`claims of the ’552 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant has failed to obtain permission from DSS to make, use, offer to sell,
`
`sell, or import products embodying the claims in the ’552 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`Qualcomm has been and is now directly infringing the ’552 Patent by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Infringing
`
`Products, or consumer products that contain Infringing Products, that structurally embody one or
`
`more claims of the ’552 Patent. Qualcomm also has been and now is inducing others, such as
`
`manufacturers and/or retailers of products incorporating Qualcomm’s infringing semiconductors,
`
`to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’552 Patent by using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 6  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7
`
`and/or importing products made by processes embodied in, or that otherwise embody, one or
`
`more claims of the ’552 Patent.
`
`25.
`
`Qualcomm directly or through intermediaries has infringed and continues to
`
`infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’552 Patent
`
`by making, using, making available for another’s use, offering to license or licensing in the
`
`United States, selling or offering to sell, and/or importing the Infringing Products. By way of
`
`example only, Qualcomm has directly infringed and continues to infringe, in addition to other
`
`claims, at least claim 1 of the ’552 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the
`
`United States, without DSS’s authority, products such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 series,
`
`the MDM92335, and all devices made via a 28 or 20 nanometer process (the “Infringing
`
`Products”). Qualcomm’s infringing activities include importing, offering for sale, and/or selling
`
`the Infringing Products in the United States. Qualcomm also infringes the ’552 Patent by selling
`
`and offering to sell the Infringing Products directly and via sales representatives, distributors,
`
`and resellers to consumers, businesses, distributors, and resellers. Qualcomm’s infringement of
`
`the ’552 Patent has caused substantial damage to DSS. Qualcomm’s infringing activities violate
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`26.
`
`Qualcomm directly or through intermediaries has and continues to induce
`
`infringement (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) of one or more claims of the
`
`’552 Patent. Qualcomm’s deliberate actions include, but are not limited to, actively marketing
`
`to, encouraging use by, and instructing consumers, businesses, distributors, resellers, sales
`
`representatives, to use, promote, market, distribute, and/or sell the Infringing Products. Plaintiff
`
`contends that Qualcomm aided, instructed, or otherwise acted with the intent to cause acts by
`
`consumers, businesses, distributors, resellers, and sales representatives that would result in direct
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 7  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
`
`infringement of the ’552 Patent. At least as to the time of this filing, Qualcomm knew of the
`
`’552 Patent, and Qualcomm knows, or at least should know, that Qualcomm’s actions would
`
`result in infringement of the ’552 Patent. By way of example only, Qualcomm has induced
`
`infringement and continues to induce infringement of, in addition to other claims of, at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’552 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States,
`
`without DSS’s authority, products such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 series, the
`
`MDM92335, and all devices made via a 28 or 20 nanometer process. These actions, individually
`
`and collectively, have induced and continue to induce the direct infringement of the ’552 Patent
`
`by consumers, businesses, distributors, resellers, and sales representatives. Qualcomm’s
`
`infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`27.
`
`Qualcomm, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to cause, irreparable
`
`injury and damages to Plaintiff for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined
`
`by this Court, Qualcomm will continue to infringe the ’552 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
` DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL VI.
`
`28.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a
`
`trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury.
`
`VII.
`
` PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`29. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief:
`
`30.
`
`A judgment that Defendant has directly infringed the patent-in-suit and/or induced
`
`the infringement of the patent-in-suit;
`
`31.
`
`A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendant and its officers,
`
`directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and those in
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 8  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
`
`active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing, and/or inducing the
`
`infringement of the patent-in-suit;
`
`32.
`
`A ruling that this case be found to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a
`
`judgment awarding to Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action;
`
`33.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff damages under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up
`
`until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and enhanced damages for
`
`willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`34.
`
`  A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff the costs of this
`
`action (including all disbursements);
`
`35.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest on the damages award;
`
`36.
`
`A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction
`
`preventing future acts of infringement is not granted, that Plaintiff be awarded a compulsory
`
`ongoing licensing fee; and
`
`37.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Dated: July 16, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Derek Gilliland
`Texas State Bar No. 24007239
`Attorney in Charge
`
`
`
`
`Page 9  
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00692-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/16/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Edward Chin
`Texas State Bar No. 50511688
`Christian J. Hurt
`State Bar no. 24084364
`Kirk Voss
`Texas State Bar No. 24075229
`Robert Winn Cutler
`State Bar No. 24084364
`Ross Leonoudakis
`State Bar No. 24087915
`Nix Patterson & Roach, L.L.P.
`5215 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite 1900
`Irving, Texas 75039
`972.831.1188 (telephone)
`972.444.0716 (facsimile)
`edchin@me.com
`christianhurt@nixlawfirm.com
`kirkvoss@me.com
`winncutler@nixlawfirm.com
`rossl@nixlawfirm.com
`
`William E. “Bo” Davis, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24047416
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`222 N. Fredonia St.
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: 903-230-9090
`Telecopier: 903-230-9661
`Email: bdavis@bdavisfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DSS
`TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT INC.
`
`
`Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`Page 10  
`
`