`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`ZTE CORPORATION AND
`ZTE (USA), INC.;
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-1100
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`§ § § § § § § § § § §
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst Licensing” or “Plaintiff”) files this
`Second Amended Complaint against ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”
`or “Defendants”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 (the “’399 Patent”); 6,895,449
`(the “’449 Patent”); 8,504,746 (the “’746 Patent”); 8,966,144 (“’144 Patent”); and 9,189,437 (the
`“’437 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents”).
`I. PARTIES
`1.
`Plaintiff Papst Licensing is a company existing under the laws of the Federal
`Republic of Germany, with its principal place of business located at Bahnofstrasse 33, 78112 St.
`Georgen, Germany.
`2.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ZTE Corporation is a corporation
`organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, having its principal
`place of business located at No. 55, Hi-tech Road South, ShenZhen, P.R. China 518057, where it
`can be served with process. Upon information and belief, Defendant ZTE Corporation is
`authorized to do business in Texas.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 76
`
`3.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. is a corporation
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, having its principal place of
`business located in Richardson, Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc.
`is authorized to do business in Texas. ZTE (USA), Inc. may be served by serving its registered
`agent Jing Li, 2425 N. Central Expressway, Suite 323, Richardson, Texas 75080.
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`4.
`This is an action for patent infringement which arises under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271,
`281, 284 and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`§§1331 and 1338(a).
`5.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over ZTE, and venue is proper in this Court
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b), (c), and 1400. This Court has personal jurisdiction over ZTE
`because, among other things, ZTE has established minimum contacts within the forum such that
`the exercise of jurisdiction over ZTE will not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`substantial justice. For example, ZTE has placed products that practice and/or embody the
`claimed inventions of the Patents into the stream of commerce with the reasonable expectation
`and/or knowledge that purchasers and users of such products were located within this district. In
`addition, ZTE has sold, advertised, marketed, and distributed products in this district that
`practice the claimed inventions of the Patents. ZTE derives substantial revenue from the sale of
`infringing products distributed within the district, and/or expects or should reasonably expect its
`actions to have consequences within the district, and derive substantial revenue from interstate
`and international commerce.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 77
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`6.
`The name Papst has been closely associated with patents and the protection of
`intellectual property for over seventy years. Hermann Papst was an engineer and inventor who
`was responsible for over four hundred patents in a variety of technical fields. Mr. Hermann
`Papst’s licensure of a patent pertaining to loudspeakers enabled him to launch Papst-Motoren
`GmbH & Co. KG—a business that generated over six hundred patents on in-house products such
`as small electric motors and cooling fans. In 1992, Papst-Motoren’s patent portfolio was sold to
`Papst Licensing, a company founded by Mr. Hermann Papst’s son, Mr. Georg Papst. Papst
`Licensing is a patent licensing company protecting its own and others’ intellectual property
`rights. After Hermann Papst’s death in 1981 and the passing of Georg Papst in 2012, the family
`business is now run by the third generation of Papsts.
`7.
`The ’399 Patent was filed on March 3, 1998 and issued on October 22, 2002. The
`’746 Patent was filed on September 27, 2010 and issued on August 6, 2013. The ’449 Patent was
`filed on August 15, 2002 and issued on May 17, 2005. The ’144 Patent was filed on August 24,
`2006 and issued on February 24, 2015. The ’437 Patent was filed on August 24, 2006 and issued
`on November 17, 2015. The ’399, ’449, ’746, ’144 and ’437 Patents are generally directed
`towards methods and systems for the transfer of data and in particular to interface devices for
`communication between a computer or host device and a data transmit/receive device from
`which data is to be acquired or with which two-way communication is to take place.
`8.
`Papst Licensing acquired
`the Patents
`through
`its predecessor-in-interest,
`Labortechnik Tasler GmbH—a pioneer and leader in the area of interface devices and software.
`9.
`Plaintiff Papst Licensing has obtained all substantial right and interest to the
`Patents, including all rights to recover for all past and future infringements thereof.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 78
`
`10.
`On or around September 12, 2014, Papst Licensing notified ZTE of its
`infringement of the ’746 Patent.
`11.
`On information and belief, ZTE has monitored Papst’s patent prosecution
`activities at least since being notified of its infringement. In all events, ZTE has knowledge of the
`’399, ’449, ’746, ’144 and ’437 Patents by virtue of receiving the original complaint for this
`lawsuit.
`12.
`ZTE has infringed and continues to infringe the Papst Patents by making, selling,
`offering for sale, importing, and using products and software in an infringing manner, including
`but not limited to ZTE’s smartphone, mobile phone and tablet products, as well as any other
`products operating in a substantially similar manner. Moreover, ZTE provides its customers with
`the accused software and instructs its customers to use the software in an infringing manner,
`including through its website at https://www.zteusa.com.
`13.
`In addition, ZTE knowingly, actively induced and continues to knowingly
`actively induce (or is willfully blind to the) infringement of one or more of the Patents within
`this district by making, using, offering for sale, and selling infringing products, as well as by
`contracting with others to use, market, sell, and offer to sell infringing products, all with
`knowledge of the asserted Patents, and their claims, with knowledge that their customers will
`use, market, sell, and offer to sell infringing products in this district and elsewhere in the United
`States, and with the knowledge and specific intent to encourage and facilitate infringing sales
`and use of the products by others within this district and the United States by creating and
`disseminating promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, and product
`manuals, and technical materials related to the infringing products.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 79
`
`14. Moreover, ZTE knowingly contributed to the infringement of one or more of the
`Patents by others in this district, and continues to contribute to the infringement of one or more
`of the Patents by others in this district by selling or offering to sell components of infringing
`products in this district, which components constitute a material part of the inventions of the
`Patents, knowing of the Patents and their claims, knowing those components to be especially
`made or especially adapted for use to infringe one or more of the Patents, and knowing that those
`components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`infringing use.
`
`IV. PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`COUNT I — INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,470,399
`15.
`Papst Licensing is the assignee of the ’399 Patent, entitled “Flexible Interface For
`Communication Between A Host And An Analog I/O Device Connected To The Interface
`Regardless The Type Of The I/O Device,” and holds all substantial rights in the same. Among
`other rights, Papst Licensing maintains the exclusive right to exclude others, the exclusive right
`to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringements, and the exclusive right to
`settle any claims of infringement.
`16.
`The ’399 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`17.
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the
`’399 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things,
`making, having made, importing, using, offering for sale, and/or selling the claimed system and
`methods of the ’399 Patent. At a minimum, ZTE has been, and now is, infringing claims of the
`’399 Patent by making, importing and/or using infringing systems and/or methods. ZTE’s
`infringing products include, but are not limited to, ZTE’s smartphone, mobile phone and tablet
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 80
`
`products that are compliant with or use the protocol specifications Picture Transfer Protocol
`(“PTP”) and/or Media Transfer Protocol (“MTP”) and/or Mass Storage Device/Mass Storage
`Class (“MSD”) and therefore use and/or are capable of using said protocols when connected to a
`host computer (e.g., via a Universal Serial Bus connection, Bluetooth wireless connection and/or
`another physical layer connection where supported) (“’399 Infringing Products”). Papst
`Licensing alleges that each and every element is literally present in the ’399 Infringing Products.
`To the extent not literally present, Papst Licensing reserves the right to proceed under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`18.
`ZTE has indirectly infringed the ’399 Patent by inducing the infringement of the
`‘399 Patent. With knowledge of the ’399 Patent, ZTE directs and aids its customers in using the
`’399 Infringing Products by the provision of its products and software, and related equipment
`and provision of instruction (including, by way of example, the tutorials, user guides, product
`guides, and other documentation located at https://www.zteusa.com) to customers with
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. ZTE possesses specific intent to
`encourage infringement by its customers.
`19.
`ZTE has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’399 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or 271(f),
`either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States, the ’399 Infringing Products. ZTE knows that those products:
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’399 Patent; are especially made or
`adapted to infringe the ’399 Patent; are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable
`for non-infringing use, but rather the components are used for or in systems that infringe one or
`more claims of the ’399 Patent.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 81
`
`20.
`Papst Licensing has been damaged as a result of ZTE’s infringing conduct. ZTE is
`thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s
`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.
`COUNT II — INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,895,449
`21.
`Papst Licensing is the assignee of the ’449 Patent, entitled “Flexible Interface For
`Communication Between A Host And An Analog I/O Device Connected To The Interface
`Regardless The Type Of The I/O Device,” and holds all substantial rights in the same. Among
`other rights, Papst Licensing maintains the exclusive right to exclude others, the exclusive right
`to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringements, and the exclusive right to
`settle any claims of infringement.
`22.
`The ’449 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`23.
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the
`’449 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things,
`making, having made, importing using, offering for sale, and/or selling the claimed systems and
`methods. At a minimum, ZTE has been, and now is, infringing claims of the ’449 Patent by
`making, having made, importing and/or using infringing systems and/or methods. ZTE’s
`infringing products include, but are not limited to, ZTE’s smartphone, mobile phone and tablet
`products that are compliant with or use the protocol specifications Mass Storage Device/Mass
`Storage Class (“MSD”) and therefore use and/or are capable of using said protocols when
`connected to a host computer (e.g., via a Universal Serial Bus connection, Bluetooth wireless
`connection and/or another physical layer connection where supported) (“’449 Infringing
`Products”). Papst Licensing alleges that each and every element is literally present in the ’449
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 82
`
`Infringing Products. To the extent not literally present, Papst Licensing reserves the right to
`proceed under the doctrine of equivalents.
`24.
`ZTE has indirectly infringed the ’449 Patent by inducing the infringement of the
`’449 Patent. With knowledge of the ’449 Patent, ZTE directs and aids its customers in using the
`’449 Infringing Products by the provision of its products and software, and related equipment
`and provision of instruction (including, by way of example, the tutorials, user guides, product
`guides, and other documentation located at https://www.zteusa.com) to customers with
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. ZTE possesses specific intent to
`encourage infringement by its customers.
`25.
` ZTE has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’449 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or 271(f),
`either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States, the ’449 Infringing Products. ZTE knows that those products:
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’449 Patent; are especially made or
`adapted to infringe the ’449 Patent; are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable
`for non-infringing use, but rather the components are used for or in systems that infringe one or
`more claims of the ’449 Patent.
`26.
` Papst Licensing has been damaged as a result of ZTE’s infringing conduct. ZTE
`is thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s
`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.
`COUNT III — INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 83
`
`27.
`Papst Licensing is the assignee of the ’746 Patent, entitled “Analog Data
`Generating And Processing Device For Use With A Personal Computer,” and holds all
`substantial rights in the same. Among other rights, Papst Licensing maintains the exclusive right
`to exclude others, the exclusive right to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`infringements, and the exclusive right to settle any claims of infringement.
`28.
`The ’746 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`29.
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the
`’746 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things,
`making, having made, importing using, offering for sale, and/or selling the claimed systems and
`methods. At a minimum, ZTE has been, and now is, infringing claims of the ’746 Patent by
`making, having made, importing and/or using infringing systems and/or methods. ZTE’s
`infringing products include, but are not limited to, ZTE’s smartphone, mobile phone and tablet
`products that are compliant with or use the protocol specifications Picture Transfer Protocol
`(“PTP”) and/or Media Transfer Protocol (“MTP”) and/or Mass Storage Device/Mass Storage
`Class (“MSD”) and therefore use and/or are capable of using said protocols when connected to a
`host computer (e.g., via a Universal Serial Bus connection, Bluetooth wireless connection and/or
`another physical layer connection where supported) (“’746 Infringing Products”). Papst
`Licensing alleges that each and every element is literally present in the ’746 Infringing Products.
`To the extent not literally present, Papst Licensing reserves the right to proceed under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`30.
`ZTE has indirectly infringed the ’746 Patent by inducing the infringement of the
`’746 Patent. With knowledge of the ’746 Patent, ZTE directs and aids its customers in using the
`’746 Infringing Products by the provision of its products and software, and related equipment
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 84
`
`and provision of instruction (including, by way of example, the tutorials, user guides, product
`guides, and other documentation located at https://www.zteusa.com) to customers with
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. ZTE possesses specific intent to
`encourage infringement by its customers.
`31.
`ZTE has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’746 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or 271(f),
`either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States, the ’746 Infringing Products. ZTE knows that those products:
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’746 Patent; are especially made or
`adapted to infringe the ’746 Patent; are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable
`for non-infringing use, but rather the components are used for or in systems that infringe one or
`more claims of the ’746 Patent.
`32.
`Papst Licensing has been damaged as a result of ZTE’s infringing conduct. ZTE is
`thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s
`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.
`COUNT IV — INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`33.
`Papst Licensing is the assignee of the ’144 Patent, entitled “Analog Data
`Generating And Processing Device Having A Multi-Use Automatic Processor,” and holds all
`substantial rights in the same. Among other rights, Papst Licensing maintains the exclusive right
`to exclude others, the exclusive right to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`infringements, and the exclusive right to settle any claims of infringement.
`34.
`The ’144 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 85
`
`35.
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the
`’144 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things,
`making, having made, importing, using, offering for sale, and/or selling the claimed system and
`methods of the ’144 Patent. At a minimum, ZTE has been, and now is, infringing claims of the
`’144 Patent by making, having made, importing and/or using infringing systems and/or methods.
`ZTE’s infringing products include, but are not limited to, ZTE’s smartphone, mobile phone and
`tablet products that are compliant with or use the protocol specifications Picture Transfer
`Protocol (“PTP”) and/or Media Transfer Protocol (“MTP”) and/or Mass Storage Device/Mass
`Storage Class (“MSD”) and therefore use and/or are capable of using said protocols when
`connected to a host computer (e.g., via a Universal Serial Bus connection, Bluetooth wireless
`connection and/or another physical layer connection where supported) (“’144 Infringing
`Products”). Papst Licensing alleges that each and every element is literally present in the ’144
`Infringing Products. To the extent not literally present, Papst Licensing reserves the right to
`proceed under the doctrine of equivalents.
`36.
`ZTE has indirectly infringed the ’144 Patent by inducing the infringement of the
`’144 Patent. With knowledge of the ’144 Patent, ZTE directs and aids its customers in using the
`’144 Infringing Products by the provision of its products and software, and related equipment
`and provision of instruction (including, by way of example, the tutorials, user guides, product
`guides, and other documentation located at https://www.zteusa.com) to customers with
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. ZTE possesses specific intent to
`encourage infringement by its customers.
`37.
`ZTE has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’144 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or 271(f),
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 86
`
`either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States, the ’144 Infringing Products. ZTE knows that those products:
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’144 Patent; are especially made or
`adapted to infringe the ’144 Patent; are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable
`for non-infringing use, but rather the components are used for or in systems that infringe one or
`more claims of the ’144 Patent.
`38.
`Papst Licensing has been damaged as a result of ZTE’s infringing conduct. ZTE is
`thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s
`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.
`COUNT V — INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`39.
`Papst Licensing is the assignee of the ’437 Patent, entitled “Analog Data
`Generating And Processing Device For Use With A Personal Computer,” and holds all
`substantial rights in the same. Among other rights, Papst Licensing maintains the exclusive right
`to exclude others, the exclusive right to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`infringements, and the exclusive right to settle any claims of infringement.
`40.
`The ’437 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`41.
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the
`’437 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things,
`making, having made, importing using, offering for sale, and/or selling the claimed systems and
`methods. At a minimum, ZTE has been, and now is, infringing claims of the ’437 Patent by
`making, having made, importing and/or using infringing systems and/or methods. ZTE’s
`infringing products include, but are not limited to, ZTE’s smartphone, mobile phone and tablet
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 87
`
`products that are compliant with or use the protocol specifications Picture Transfer Protocol
`(“PTP”) and/or Media Transfer Protocol (“MTP”) and/or Mass Storage Device/Mass Storage
`Class (“MSD”) and therefore use and/or are capable of using said protocols when connected to a
`host computer (e.g., via a Universal Serial Bus connection, Bluetooth wireless connection and/or
`another physical layer connection where supported) (“’437 Infringing Products”). Papst
`Licensing alleges that each and every element is literally present in the ’437 Infringing Products.
`To the extent not literally present, Papst Licensing reserves the right to proceed under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`42.
`ZTE has indirectly infringed the ’437 Patent by inducing the infringement of the
`’437 Patent. With knowledge of the ’437 Patent, ZTE directs and aids its customers in using the
`’437 Infringing Products by the provision of its products and software, and related equipment
`and provision of instruction (including, by way of example, the tutorials, user guides, product
`guides, and other documentation located at https://www.zteusa.com) to customers with
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. ZTE possesses specific intent to
`encourage infringement by its customers.
`43.
`ZTE has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’437 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or 271(f),
`either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States, the ’437 Infringing Products. ZTE knows that those products:
`constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’437 Patent; are especially made or
`adapted to infringe the ’437 Patent; are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable
`for non-infringing use, but rather the components are used for or in systems that infringe one or
`more claims of the ’437 Patent.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 88
`
`44.
`Papst Licensing has been damaged as a result of ZTE’s infringing conduct. ZTE is
`thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s
`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.
`V. WILLFULNESS
`45.
`Papst Licensing alleges upon information and belief that ZTE has knowingly or
`with reckless disregard willfully infringed the ’746 Patent. ZTE’s knowledge includes
`knowledge of the ’746 Patent by virtue of Papst Licensing having notified ZTE of its infringing
`acts. ZTE acted with knowledge of the ’746 Patent and despite an objectively high likelihood
`that its actions constituted infringement of Papst Licensing’s valid patent rights.
`46.
`This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that is should have
`been known to ZTE. Papst Licensing seeks enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284.
`VI. JURY DEMAND
`47.
`Papst Licensing demands a trial by jury of all matters to which it is entitled to trial
`by jury, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 38.
`VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Papst Licensing prays for judgment and seeks relief against ZTE
`as follows:
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399; 6,895,449;
`8,504,746; 8,966,144; and 9,189,437 have been infringed, either literally and/or
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by ZTE ;
`Award Plaintiff past and future damages together with prejudgment and post-
`judgment interest to compensate for the infringement by ZTE of the Patents in
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284, and increase such award by up to three times the
`amount found or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284;
`That the Court declare this an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its reasonable
`attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-01100-RWS Document 15 Filed 04/05/16 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 89
`
`d.
`
`That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`Dated: April 5, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Christopher V. Goodpastor
`Christopher V. Goodpastor
`Texas State Bar No. 00791991
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`Andrew G. DiNovo
`Texas State Bar No. 00790594
`Adam G. Price
`State Bar No. 24027750
`Jay D. Ellwanger
`Texas State Bar No. 24036522
`DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`Telephone: (512) 539-2626
`Telecopier: (512) 539-2627
`cgoodpastor@dpelaw.com
`adinovo@dpelaw.com
`aprice@dpelaw.com
`jellwanger@dpelaw.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`15
`
`