Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION 6:17CV146
`SEVERED FROM
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-cv-251
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`AT&T INC.,
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON
`WIRELESS, SPRINT CORPORATION,
`SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
`BOOST MOBILE, LLC,
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC files this Original Complaint against
`
`Apple Inc.; AT&T Inc.; AT&T Mobility LLC; Verizon Communications, Inc.; Cellco
`
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Sprint Corporation; Sprint Solutions, Inc.; Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P.; Boost Mobile, LLC; T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, the
`
`“Defendants”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,377,804 (“the ’804 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,819,923 (“the ’9923 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,215,962 (“the ’962 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 4
`
`7,941,174 (“the ’174 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820 (“the ’820 patent”), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,810,019 (“the ’019 patent”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) is a Texas limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
`
`2.
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a California corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Cupertino, California. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`3.
`
`AT&T Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Dallas, Texas. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent, The Corporation
`
`Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`4.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC (with AT&T Inc., “AT&T”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. This Defendant may be served
`
`with process through its agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209
`
`Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of
`
`Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`5.
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in New York, New York. This Defendant may be served with process through its
`
`agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`6.
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (with Verizon Communications Inc.,
`
`“Verizon”) is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of business in Basking
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 5
`
`Ridge, New Jersey. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent, The
`
`Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas.
`
`7.
`
`Sprint Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in Overland Park, Kansas. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`8.
`
`Sprint Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Reston, Virginia. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Sprint Spectrum L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of
`
`business in Overland Park, Kansas. This Defendant may be served with process through its
`
`agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19808. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`10.
`
`Boost Mobile, LLC (with Sprint Corporation, Sprint Solutions, Inc., and Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., “Sprint”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business in Irvine, California. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`11.
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
`
`in Bellevue, Washington. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 6
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`12.
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc. (with T-Mobile USA, Inc., “T-Mobile”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. This Defendant may be
`
`served with process through its agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road,
`
`Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas
`
`and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, namely 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a), and 1367.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),
`
`and 1400(b). On information and belief, each Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial
`
`district, has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, has purposely transacted
`
`business in this judicial district, and/or has regular and established places of business in this
`
`judicial district.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, each 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 their substantial and pervasive business in this State and judicial district, including: (A)
`
`at least part of their infringing activities alleged herein; and (B) regularly doing or soliciting
`
`business, engaging in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods
`
`sold and services provided to Texas residents.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 7
`
`17. More specifically, Defendants’ substantial contacts with the forum include, but
`
`are not limited to: (i) the manufacture, marketing, sale, distribution, and use of Apple mobile
`
`devices; (ii) the marketing and sale of services for mobile device communications; (iii) the
`
`ownership and/or operation of stores where Apple mobile devices are sold and serviced; and/or
`
`(iv) the provision of technical and customer support for Apple mobile devices and attendant
`
`mobile device communications services.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,377,804)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’804 patent, entitled “Mobile Communication
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Systems,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’804 patent, including the right to
`
`exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future infringements. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’804 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`20.
`
`The ’804 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants Apple, AT&T, and T-Mobile have and continue to directly and/or
`
`indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement) one or more
`
`claims of the ’804 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States,
`
`including at least claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, without the consent or authorization of CCE, by or
`
`through their making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or use of Apple
`
`mobile devices, including, for example: the iPhone 5, the iPhone 5c, and the iPhone 5s,
`
`compatible with the AT&T cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or through
`
`Apple and/or AT&T (the “’804 AT&T Mobile Devices”); and the iPhone 5c and the iPhone 5s,
`
`compatible with the T-Mobile cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or through
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 8
`
`Apple and/or T-Mobile (the “’804 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively
`
`referred to as the “’804 Apple Devices.”
`
`22.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the ’804 patent by making, using, selling, offering for
`
`sale, and/or importing the ’804 Apple Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are
`
`thereby liable for direct infringement. Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect
`
`infringement of the ’804 patent because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement
`
`of the patent by their customers and other end users who use the ’804 Apple Devices to practice
`
`the claimed methods.
`
`23.
`
`Each Defendant has had knowledge of the ’804 patent, at least as early as service
`
`of the Original Complaint filed and served in Cellular Comms. Equip. LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`6:14-cv-31 (E.D. Tex. filed Jan. 17, 2013).
`
`24.
`
`Despite having knowledge of the ’804 patent, Defendants named in this Count
`
`have specifically intended and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire and use
`
`the ’804 Apple Devices, including Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that
`
`infringes the ’804 patent, including at least claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. This is evident when
`
`Defendants encourage and instruct customers and other end users in the use and operation of the
`
`’804 Apple Devices.
`
`25.
`
`In particular, despite having knowledge of the ’804 patent, Defendants have
`
`provided, and continue to provide, instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals,
`
`and similar online resources (available via http://support.apple.com/manuals/, for instance) that
`
`specifically teach the customers and other end users to use the ’804 Apple Devices in an
`
`infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have known), or
`
`should know (and should have known), that their actions have, and continue to, actively induce
`
`infringement.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 9
`
`26.
`
`Additionally, Defendants named in this Count know, and have known, that the
`
`’804 Apple Devices include proprietary hardware components and software instructions that
`
`work in concert to perform specific, intended functions. Such specific, intended functions,
`
`carried out by these hardware and software combinations, are a material part of the inventions of
`
`the ’804 patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’804 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, and/or import the ’804 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`29.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates CCE
`
`for Defendants’ 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. 6,819,923)
`
`30.
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 herein by reference.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 10
`
`31.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’9923 patent, entitled “Method for Communication of
`
`Neighbor Cell Information,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’9923 patent,
`
`including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’9923 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`32.
`
`The ’9923 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants Apple, AT&T, and T-Mobile have and continue to directly infringe
`
`one or more claims of the ’9923 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the
`
`United States, including at least claim 11, without the consent of CCE, by or through their
`
`making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or use of Apple mobile devices,
`
`including, for example: the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4s, the iPhone 5, the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s,
`
`the iPad 2, the iPad (third generation) (a/k/a “the new iPad” or “iPad 3”), the iPad (fourth
`
`generation) (a/k/a “the iPad with Retina display” or “iPad 4”), the iPad mini, the iPad mini with
`
`Retina display, and the iPad Air, compatible with the AT&T cellular network and sold or
`
`otherwise distributed by or through Apple and/or AT&T (the “’9923 AT&T Mobile Devices”);
`
`and the iPhone 4, the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s, the iPad mini with Retina display, and the iPad
`
`Air, compatible with the T-Mobile cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or
`
`through T-Mobile (the “’9923 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively
`
`referred to as the “’9923 Apple Devices.”
`
`34.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’9923 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’9923 Apple Devices. Defendants are thereby
`
`liable for direct infringement.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`(or “3GPP”) member organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 11
`
`solicits identification of standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received
`
`actual notice of the standard essential patents at issue here. The ’9923 patent is one such patent,
`
`and Defendants have known of the ’9923 patent at least as early as April 2010, when it was
`
`disclosed to 3GPP via the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI,” an
`
`organizational member of 3GPP).
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’9923 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly infringing one or more claims of the ’9923 patent, Defendants
`
`named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and disregarded an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing activities relative to the
`
`’9923 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton, and deliberate in disregard of CCE’s
`
`rights.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import ’9923 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, and/or import ’9923 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`39.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates CCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 12
`
`for their 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. 7,215,962)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’962 patent, entitled “Method for an Intersystem
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Connection Handover,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’962 patent, including the
`
`right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’962 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`42.
`
`The ’962 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile have and continue to
`
`directly and/or indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement)
`
`one or more claims of the ’962 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the
`
`United States, including at least claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13, without the consent or authorization
`
`of CCE, by or through their making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or
`
`use of Apple mobile devices, including, for example: the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4s, the iPhone 5,
`
`the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s, the iPad 2, the iPad (third generation) (a/k/a “the new iPad” or
`
`“iPad 3”), the iPad (fourth generation) (a/k/a “the iPad with Retina display” or “iPad 4”), the
`
`iPad mini, the iPad mini with Retina display, and the iPad Air, compatible with the AT&T
`
`cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or through Apple and/or AT&T (the “’962
`
`AT&T Mobile Devices”); the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s, the iPad (third generation) (a/k/a “the
`
`new iPad” or “iPad 3”), the iPad (fourth generation) (a/k/a “the iPad with Retina display” or
`
`“iPad 4”), the iPad mini, the iPad mini with Retina display, and the iPad Air, compatible with the
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 13
`
`Verizon cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or through Apple and/or Verizon
`
`(the “’962 Verizon Mobile Devices”); the iPhone 5, the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s, the iPad
`
`(fourth generation) (a/k/a “the iPad with Retina display” or “iPad 4”), the iPad mini, the iPad
`
`mini with Retina display, and the iPad Air, compatible with the Sprint cellular network and sold
`
`or otherwise distributed by or through Apple and/or Sprint (the “’962 Sprint Mobile Devices”);
`
`and the iPhone 4, the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s, the iPad mini with Retina display, and the iPad
`
`Air, compatible with the T-Mobile cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or
`
`through Apple and/or T-Mobile (the “’962 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are
`
`collectively referred to as the “’962 Apple Devices.”
`
`44.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’962 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’962 Apple Devices. Defendants also directly
`
`infringe the ’962 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the ’962
`
`Apple Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable for direct
`
`infringement.
`
`45.
`
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’962 patent
`
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`
`and other end users who use the ’962 Apple Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`
`46.
`
`Each Defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or “3GPP”) member
`
`organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP solicits identification of
`
`standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received actual notice of the standard
`
`essential patents at issue here. The ’962 patent is one such patent, and Defendants have known
`
`of the ’962 patent at least as early as December 2010, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via ETSI.
`
`47.
`
`Despite having knowledge of the ’962 patent, Defendants named in this Count
`
`have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire and use such devices, including
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 14
`
`Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that infringes the ’962 patent, including
`
`at least claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13. This is evident when Defendants encourage and instruct
`
`customers and other end users in the use and operation of the ’962 Apple Devices.
`
`48.
`
`In particular, despite having knowledge of the ’962 patent, Defendants have
`
`provided, and continue to provide, instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals,
`
`and similar online resources (available via http://support.apple.com/manuals/, for instance) that
`
`specifically teach the customers and other end users to use the ’962 Apple Devices in an
`
`infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have known), or
`
`should know (and should have known), that their actions have, and continue to, actively induce
`
`infringement.
`
`49.
`
`Additionally, Defendants named in this Count know, and have known, that the
`
`’962 Apple Devices include proprietary hardware components and software instructions that
`
`work in concert to perform specific, intended functions. Such specific, intended functions,
`
`carried out by these hardware and software combinations, are a material part of the inventions of
`
`the ’962 patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’962 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’962
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and
`
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities relative to the ’962 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton, and
`
`deliberate in disregard of CCE’s rights.
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 15
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 Verizon Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`53.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 Sprint Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and Sprint are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, and/or import the ’962 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`55.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates CCE
`
`for their 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.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 16
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,174)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’174 patent, entitled “Method for Multicode
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Transmission by a Subscriber Station,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’174 patent,
`
`including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’174 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`58.
`
`The ’174 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants Apple, AT&T, and T-Mobile have and continue to directly and/or
`
`indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement) one or more
`
`claims of the ’174 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States,
`
`including at least claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19, without the consent of CCE, by or through their
`
`making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or use of Apple mobile devices,
`
`including, for example: the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4s, the iPhone 5, the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s,
`
`the iPad 2, the iPad (third generation) (a/k/a “the new iPad” or “iPad 3”), the iPad (fourth
`
`generation) (a/k/a “the iPad with Retina display” or “iPad 4”), the iPad mini, the iPad mini with
`
`Retina display, and the iPad Air, compatible with the AT&T cellular network and sold or
`
`otherwise distributed by or through Apple and/or AT&T (the “’174 AT&T Mobile Devices”);
`
`and the iPhone 4, the iPhone 5c, the iPhone 5s, the iPad mini with Retina display, and the iPad
`
`Air, compatible with the T-Mobile cellular network and sold or otherwise distributed by or
`
`through Apple and/or T-Mobile (the “’174 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are
`
`collectively referred to as the “’174 Apple Devices.”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 17
`
`60.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’174 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’174 Apple Devices. Defendants also directly
`
`infringe the ’174 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the ’174
`
`Apple Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable for direct
`
`infringement.
`
`61.
`
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’174 patent
`
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`
`and other end users who use the ’174 Apple Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`
`62.
`
`Each Defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or “3GPP”) member
`
`organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP solicits identification of
`
`standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received actual notice of the standard
`
`essential patents at issue here. The ’174 patent is one such patent, and Defendants have known
`
`of the ’174 patent at least as early as August 2010, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via the
`
`European Telecommunication Standards Institute (“ETSI,” an organizational member of 3GPP).
`
`63.
`
`Despite having knowledge of the ’174 patent, Defendants named in this Count
`
`have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire and use such devices, including
`
`Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that infringes the ’174 patent, including
`
`at least claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19. This is evident when Defendants encourage and instruct
`
`customers and other end users in the user and operation of the ’174 Apple Devices.
`
`64.
`
`In particular, despite having knowledge of the ’174 patent, Defendants have
`
`provided, and continue to provide, instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals,
`
`and similar online resources (available via http://support.apple.com/manuals/, for instance) that
`
`specifically teach the customers and other end users to use the ’174 Apple Devices in an
`
`infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have known), or
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 18
`
`should know (and should have known), that their actions have, and continue to, actively induce
`
`infringement.
`
`65.
`
`Additionally, Defendants named in this Count know, and have known, that the
`
`’174 Apple Devices include proprietary hardware components and software instructions that
`
`work in concert to perform specific, intended functions. Such specific, intended functions,
`
`carried out by these hardware and software combinations, are a material part of the inventions of
`
`the ’174 patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`66.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’174 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’174
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and
`
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities relative to the ’174 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton, and
`
`deliberate in disregard of CCE’s rights.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’174 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`68.
`
`On information and belief, Apple and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, and/or import the ’174 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, Apple and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 2 Filed 03/08/17 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 19
`
`69.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates CCE
`
`for their 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. 8,055,820)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’820 patent, entitled “Apparatus, System, and Method
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`for Designating a Buffer Status Reporting Format Based on Detected Pre-Selected Buffer
`
`Conditions,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’820 patent, including the right to
`
`exclude others and to enforce, sue, a