Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID 180
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`MICROGRAFX, LLC,
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:13-3595
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. and MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Micrografx, LLC (“Micrografx”), by and through its attorneys, for its Complaint
`
`for Patent Infringement against Google, Inc. (“Google”) and Motorola Mobility, LLC
`
`(“Motorola”) (individually and collectively, “Defendants”) alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Micrografx is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws
`
`of Texas, having a mailing address at 350 North St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Google, Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre
`
`Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Motorola Mobility, LLC is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 600
`
`North US Highway 45, Libertyville, Illinois 60048. On information and belief, defendant
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`  1
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID 181
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is a civil action for the infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,959,633
`
`(“’633 patent”); 6,057,854 (“’854 patent”); and 6,552,732 (“’732 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”) under the laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including in
`
`particular 35 U.S.C. § 271. Micrografx owns the Patents-in-Suit and holds the right to sue and
`
`recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. This Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because, upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants do and have done substantial business in Texas and in this
`
`District, including both independently and through and with their subsidiaries and various
`
`commercial arrangements by manufacturing and selling accused infringing products in this
`
`District from 5650 Alliance Gateway Freeway, Fort Worth, TX 76177 and by placing accused
`
`infringing products into the stream of commerce, which stream is directed at the State of Texas
`
`and this District, with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products would be sold in
`
`the State of Texas and this District. These acts have caused and continue to cause injury to
`
`Micrografx within this District. Defendants derive substantial revenue from the manufacturing
`
`and sale of infringing products from this District, and/or should expect or should reasonably
`
`expect their actions to have consequences within this District, and derive substantial revenue
`
`from interstate and international commerce. Upon information and belief, Defendants also do
`
`business in this state because Defendants recruit Texas residents, directly or through an
`
`intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or outside this state.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the
`
`District that an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants would not offend traditional
`
`  2
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID 182
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice and would be appropriate under Tex. Civ. Prac. &
`
`Rem. Code § 17.042.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and/or
`
`1400(b).
`
`8.
`
`Joinder of Google and Motorola is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because
`
`infringement is asserted against the Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
`
`respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
`
`occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or
`
`selling of the same accused product or process. Particularly here, on information and belief, the
`
`accused Google Maps and Chrome Browser applications are included in both Google and
`
`Motorola devices and are the same in respects relevant to the asserted patents. Further, Motorola
`
`accused devices include the Android operating system and are, on information and belief, subject
`
`to Android compatibility requirements promulgated by Google. Joinder is further proper
`
`because questions of fact common to Defendants will arise in the action. For instance, on
`
`information and belief, the specific operation of the accused functions of the Google Maps and
`
`Chrome Browser applications is common to both Google and Motorola as these applications are
`
`designed and developed by Google. Further, on information and belief, Motorola is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of Google.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Micrografx Inc., the original assignee of the Patents-in-Suit, was founded in 1982
`
`in Richardson, Texas.
`
`10.
`
`In 1995, Micrografx Inc.’s John R. Davis, Jr. of Garland, Texas, and Scott M.
`
`Glazer of Richardson, Texas, recognized a problem with providing graphics and associated
`
`  3
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 22 PageID 183
`
`information over the Internet. (’854 patent; ’732 patent). Web pages included “embedded bit
`
`mapped graphics.” (’854 patent at 1:15-27; ’732 patent at 1:18-30). As “bit mapped graphics
`
`are computer graphics stored as collections of bits in memory locations corresponding to pixels
`
`on the screen … bit mapped graphics files are generally large and take a relatively long amount
`
`of time to download over the Internet.” Id. Furthermore, “bit mapped graphics are static and
`
`device dependent.” Id.
`
`11. Mr. Davis and Mr. Glazer also recognized a problem with “associat[ing] an action
`
`with a defined area of a graphic” explaining that the “hot spots” method was “inflexible in that
`
`only rectangular hot spots can generally be defined.” (’854 patent at 1:28-36; ’732 patent at
`
`1:30-40). Furthermore, Mr. Davis and Mr. Glazer understood that this problem “becomes
`
`significant in certain applications such as maps where the regions are too complicated to describe
`
`using simple rectangles.” Id.
`
`12.
`
`Their invention comprised systems and methods for providing over a network
`
`interactive vector graphics with an active area associated with a command to be performed in
`
`response to an event. (’854 patent; ’732 patent).
`
`13.
`
`Their invention “provides interactive graphics that require less memory and
`
`therefore can be efficiently downloaded over the network [] to the client system [].” (’854 patent
`
`at 4:65-67; ’732 patent at 5:2-5).
`
`14.
`
`As
`
`the
`
`inventors explained
`
`in
`
`the specification, “QUICKSILVER” was
`
`“manufactured by Micrografx, Inc. of Richardson, Tex.” and “may be used as the vector graphics
`
`application [].” (’854 patent at 7:39-48; ’732 patent at 7:46-54).
`
`15. Mr. Davis and Mr. Glazer applied for and obtained the ’854 and ’732 patents.
`
`  4
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 5 of 22 PageID 184
`
`16.
`
`Barton E. Showalter of Baker Botts L.L.P. prosecuted the ’854 and’732 patents.
`
`Upon information and belief, Mr. Showalter maintains an office in this District.
`
`17. Micrografx Inc.’s employees Kevin E. McFarland of Coppell, Texas and Rodney
`
`T. Whisnant of Plano, Texas recognized a problem with producing graphical images. (’633
`
`patent). “Conventional systems only enable a user to draw and edit a limited number of shapes.”
`
`(’633 patent at 1:10-22). Thus, “once a computer program is released, it becomes difficult to
`
`update the program with additional shapes.” Id.
`
`18. Mr. McFarland and Mr. Whisnant also recognized a problem with tools “limited
`
`to editing and creating shapes in ways permitted by the tools within the computer program.”
`
`(’633 patent at 1:22-35). “Thus, although shapes may be added after release of a computer
`
`program, the shapes that may be added are limited to shapes that the internal tools in the
`
`computer program know how to create.” Id.
`
`19.
`
`Their invention comprised methods and systems for producing graphical images
`
`providing several advantages:
`
`New shapes may be added easily without rewriting the underlying
`computer program. Additionally, shapes may be developed by
`third parties, addressing particular markets. Furthermore, because
`shapes may be developed external to the computer program, they
`may be developed outside the application project schedule.
`Moreover, because shapes may be added easily, upgrades to the
`computer graphics package may be provided more frequently at
`lower cost. In addition, the invention provides for the modular
`production of additional shapes. Shapes may be grouped in
`different modules based on similarity of appearance or other
`characteristics, such as
`intended use. For example, shapes
`commonly used in a particular technical field may be grouped in
`one module. The invention also provides an architecture that
`allows for the integration of additional shapes with an existing
`computer program without modifying that existing program.
`(’633 patent at 1:60-2:9).
`
`20. Mr. McFarland and Mr. Whisnant applied for and obtained the ’633 patent.
`
`  5
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 6 of 22 PageID 185
`
`21.
`
`Bradley P. Williams of Baker Botts L.L.P. prosecuted the ’633 patent. Upon
`
`information and belief, Mr. Williams currently maintains an office in this District.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,057,854
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,057,854, entitled “System And Method Of Providing
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Interactive Vector Graphics Over A Network,” issued on May 2, 2000, to inventors John R.
`
`Davis, Jr. and Scott M. Glazer. A true and correct copy of the ’854 patent as Exhibit A. The
`
`’854 patent is owned by Micrografx.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google has infringed and continues to infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’854 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling in the United States and
`
`by importing into the United States mobile phones, tablets, interactive vector objects, server
`
`systems, web browsers, notebooks, and mobile applications that infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’854 patent. Upon information and belief, the mobile phones, tablets, and notebooks include
`
`applications, such as Google Maps and Chrome Browser, that provide and/or are operable to
`
`provide interactive vector graphics over a network. For example, at least the following systems
`
`directly infringe the ’854 patent:
`
`• Google Nexus 4
`• Google Nexus 5
`• Google Nexus 7
`• Google Nexus 10
`• Chrome Browser
`• Google Maps
`• Chromebook Pixel
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, Motorola has infringed and continues to infringe
`
`
`
`one or more claims of the ’854 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the
`
`  6
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 22 PageID 186
`
`doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling in the United States and
`
`by importing into the United States mobile phones that infringe one or more claims of the ’854
`
`patent. Upon information and belief, the mobile phones include applications, such as Google
`
`Maps and Chrome Browser, that provide and/or are operable to provide interactive vector
`
`graphics over a network. For example, at least the following systems directly infringe the ’854
`
`patent:
`
`
`
`• Moto X
`• Moto G
`• Droid Razr M
`• Droid Razr HD
`• Droid Razr Maxx HD
`• Photon Q 4G
`• Droid Ultra
`• Droid Mini
`• Droid Maxx
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola each induce and continue to
`
`induce infringement of the ’854 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by encouraging
`
`customers, subsidiaries, resellers, or other third parties to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import
`
`the accused instrumentalities identified in paragraphs 24-25 above. Such making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, or importing of the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25 above
`
`constitutes infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of
`
`the ’854 patent by such customers, subsidiaries, resellers, or third parties. Google and Motorola
`
`intend their subsidiaries, resellers, customers, or other third parties to make, use, sell, offer to
`
`sell, or import the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25 above and encourage
`
`infringement by: providing the accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 24-25 above that provide
`
`and/or are operable to provide interactive vector graphics over a network and thus infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ’854 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; providing other
`
`  7
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 22 PageID 187
`
`components of and accessories for the accused instrumentalities identified in paragraphs 24-25
`
`above; providing maintenance for the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25 above;
`
`advertising the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25 above through their own and third
`
`party websites; and providing instructions manuals, user guides, and information for the accused
`
`instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25 above that promote or demonstrate use of the accused
`
`instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25 above in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the
`
`’854 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Upon information and belief, Google
`
`induces and continues to induce infringement of the ’854 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(b) by encouraging customers to use its Google Maps website. Such usage constitutes
`
`infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the ’854
`
`patent by such customers. Google intends their customers to use the Google Maps website and
`
`encourages infringement by: providing the Google Maps website which, upon information and
`
`belief, provides interactive vector graphics over a network and thus infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’854 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; and advertising the Google Maps
`
`website on their own and through third parties.
`
`27.
`
`Google and Motorola have proceeded in this manner despite actual knowledge of
`
`the ’854 patent and with specific intent that the actions they actively induced and continue to
`
`induce on the part of their subsidiaries, customers, and resellers, and other third parties constitute
`
`infringement of the ’854 patent. Google and Motorola were on notice of the ’854 patent and the
`
`accused infringement since Micrografx served its initial complaint and, upon information and
`
`belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its initial complaint, and yet Google and Motorola each
`
`continue to induce infringement.
`
`  8
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 22 PageID 188
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola each have contributed and
`
`continue to contribute to the infringement of the ’854 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by
`
`selling and offering to sell within the United States, and importing into the United States to its
`
`subsidiaries, customers, resellers, or other third parties the specific functional components of the
`
`accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 24-25 above. For example, upon information and belief,
`
`Google and Motorola each contribute and continue to contribute to the infringement of the
`
`accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 24-25 above by selling, offering to sell, and importing
`
`the accused instrumentalities with the Google Maps and Chrome Browser applications and
`
`thereby selling, offering to sell, and importing the functionality for downloading over a network
`
`and rendering an interactive vector object as claimed in the ’854 patent. Thus, Google Maps and
`
`Chrome Browser applications constitute or contain a component of the machine, manufacture,
`
`combination or composition patented in the ’854 patent, or a material or apparatus for use in
`
`practicing the process patented in the ’854 patent. This component, material, or apparatus is a
`
`material part of the invention patented in the ’854 patent and is especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in infringement of the ’854 patent. This component, material, or apparatus is not
`
`a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use at least because the
`
`component, material, or apparatus has no use apart from or that does not include downloading
`
`over a network and rendering an interactive vector object as claimed in the ’854 patent.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola have proceeded despite
`
`knowledge that the combination for which the component, material, or apparatus is especially
`
`designed was patented and infringing. When the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 24-25
`
`above are used by Google and Motorola’s subsidiaries, customers, resellers, or other third
`
`parties, those subsidiaries, customers, resellers, or other third parties are thereby infringing,
`
`  9
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 10 of 22 PageID 189
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’854 patent. Google and
`
`Motorola were on notice of the ’854 patent and the accused infringement since Micrografx
`
`served its initial complaint and, upon information and belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its
`
`initial complaint, and yet Google and Motorola each continue their contributory infringement.
`
`Google and Motorola each know, for the reasons described above, that the component, material,
`
`or apparatus supplied by Google and Motorola is especially made and/or especially adapted for
`
`use in infringing the ’854 patent.
`
`30.
`
`Google and Motorola were on notice of the ’854 patent since Micrografx served
`
`its initial complaint and, upon information and belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its initial
`
`complaint. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola have continued to infringe the
`
`’854 patent despite knowledge of the ’854 patent by, for example, continuing to make, use, sell,
`
`offer for sale, or import the accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 24-25 above. Upon
`
`information and belief, Google and Motorola acted and continue to act despite an objectively
`
`high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement of the ’854 patent. Further, upon
`
`information and belief, Google and Motorola’s objectively high risk of infringement was known
`
`or so obvious that it should have been known. Thus, upon information and belief, Google and
`
`Motorola’s infringement of the ’854 patent has been and continues to be willful entitling
`
`Micrografx to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,552,732
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,552,732, entitled “System And Method Of Providing
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Interactive Vector Graphics Over A Network,” issued on April 22, 2003, to inventors John R.
`
`  10
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 11 of 22 PageID 190
`
`Davis, Jr. and Scott M. Glazer. A true and correct copy of the ’732 patent as Exhibit B. The
`
`’732 patent is owned by Micrografx.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google has infringed and continues to infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’732 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling in the United States and
`
`by importing into the United States mobile phones, tablets, interactive vector objects, server
`
`systems, web browsers, notebooks, and mobile applications that infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’732 patent. Upon information and belief, the mobile phones, tablets, and notebooks include
`
`applications, such as Google Maps and Chrome Browser, that provide and/or are operable to
`
`provide interactive vector graphics over a network. For example, at least the following systems
`
`directly infringe the ’732 patent:
`
`• Google Nexus 4
`• Google Nexus 5
`• Google Nexus 7
`• Google Nexus 10
`• Chrome Browser
`• Google Maps
`• Chromebook Pixel
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Motorola has infringed and continues to infringe
`
`
`
`one or more claims of the ’732 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling in the United States and
`
`by importing into the United States mobile phones that infringe one or more claims of the ’732
`
`patent. Upon information and belief, the mobile phones include applications, such as Google
`
`Maps and Chrome Browser, that provide and/or are operable to provide interactive vector
`
`graphics over a network. For example, at least the following systems directly infringe the ’732
`
`patent:
`
`  11
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 12 of 22 PageID 191
`
`• Moto X
`• Moto G
`• Droid Razr M
`• Droid Razr HD
`• Droid Razr Maxx HD
`• Photon Q 4G
`• Droid Ultra
`• Droid Mini
`• Droid Maxx
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola each induce and continue to
`
`
`
`induce infringement of the ’732 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by encouraging
`
`customers, subsidiaries, resellers, or other third parties to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import
`
`the accused instrumentalities identified in paragraphs 33-34 above. Such making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, or importing of the accused instrumentalities of paragraph 33-34 above
`
`constitutes infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of
`
`the ’732 patent by such customers, subsidiaries, resellers, or third parties. Google and Motorola
`
`intend their subsidiaries, resellers, customers, or other third parties to make, use, sell, offer to
`
`sell, or import the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 33-34 above and encourage
`
`infringement by: providing the accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 33-34 above that provide
`
`and/or are operable to provide interactive vector graphics over a network and thus infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ’732 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; providing other
`
`components of and accessories for the accused instrumentalities identified in paragraphs 33-34
`
`above; providing maintenance for the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 33-34 above;
`
`advertising the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 33-34 above through their own and third
`
`party websites; and providing instructions manuals, user guides, and information for the accused
`
`instrumentalities of paragraphs 33-34 above that promote or demonstrate use of the accused
`
`instrumentalities of paragraphs 33-34 above in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the
`
`  12
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 22 PageID 192
`
`’732 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Upon information and belief, Google
`
`induces and continues to induce infringement of the ’732 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(b) by encouraging customers to use its Google Maps website. Such usage constitutes
`
`infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the ’732
`
`patent by such customers. Google intends their customers to use the Google Maps website and
`
`encourages infringement by: providing the Google Maps website which, upon information and
`
`belief, provides interactive vector graphics over a network and thus infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’732 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; and advertising the Google Maps
`
`website on their own and through third parties.
`
`36.
`
`Google and Motorola have proceeded in this manner despite actual knowledge of
`
`the ’732 patent and with specific intent that the actions they actively induced and continue to
`
`induce on the part of their subsidiaries, customers, and resellers, and other third parties constitute
`
`infringement of the ’732 patent. Google and Motorola were on notice of the ’854 patent and the
`
`accused infringement since Micrografx served its initial complaint and, upon information and
`
`belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its initial complaint, and yet Google and Motorola each
`
`continue to induce infringement.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola each have contributed and
`
`continue to contribute to the infringement of the ’732 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by
`
`selling and offering to sell within the United States, and importing into the United States to its
`
`subsidiaries, customers, resellers, or other third parties the specific functional components of the
`
`accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 33-34 above. For example, upon information and belief,
`
`Google and Motorola each contribute and continue to contribute to the infringement of the
`
`accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 33-34 above by selling, offering to sell, and importing
`
`  13
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 14 of 22 PageID 193
`
`the accused instrumentalities with the Google Maps and Chrome Browser applications and
`
`thereby selling, offering to sell, and importing the functionality for downloading over a network
`
`and rendering an interactive vector object as claimed in the ’732 patent. Thus, Google Maps and
`
`Chrome Browser applications constitute or contain a component of the machine, manufacture,
`
`combination or composition patented in the ’732 patent, or a material or apparatus for use in
`
`practicing the process patented in the ’732 patent. This component, material, or apparatus is a
`
`material part of the invention patented in the ’732 patent and is especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in infringement of the ’732 patent. This component, material, or apparatus is not
`
`a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use at least because the
`
`component, material, or apparatus has no use apart from or that does not include downloading
`
`over a network and rendering an interactive vector object as claimed in the ’732 patent.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola have proceeded despite
`
`knowledge that the combination for which the component, material, or apparatus is especially
`
`designed was patented and infringing. When the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 33-34
`
`above are used by Google and Motorola’s subsidiaries, customers, resellers, or other third
`
`parties, those subsidiaries, customers, resellers, or other third parties are thereby infringing,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’732 patent. Google and
`
`Motorola were on notice of the ’732 patent and the accused infringement since Micrografx
`
`served its initial complaint and, upon information and belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its
`
`initial complaint, and yet Google and Motorola each continue their contributory infringement.
`
`Google and Motorola each know, for the reasons described above, that the component, material,
`
`or apparatus supplied by Google and Motorola is especially made and/or especially adapted for
`
`use in infringing the ’732 patent.
`
`  14
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 15 of 22 PageID 194
`
`39.
`
`Google and Motorola were on notice of the ’732 patent since Micrografx served
`
`its initial complaint and, upon information and belief, since prior to Micrografx serving its initial
`
`complaint. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola have continued to infringe the
`
`’732 patent despite knowledge of the ’732 patent by, for example, continuing to make, use, sell,
`
`offer for sale, or import the accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 33-34 above. Upon
`
`information and belief, Google and Motorola acted and continue to act despite an objectively
`
`high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement of the ’732 patent. Further, upon
`
`information and belief, Google and Motorola’s objectively high risk of infringement was known
`
`or so obvious that it should have been known. Thus, upon information and belief, Google and
`
`Motorola’s infringement of the ’732 patent has been and continues to be willful entitling
`
`Micrografx to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,959,633
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,959,633, entitled “Method And System For Producing
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Graphical Images,” issued on Sept. 28, 1999, to inventors Kevin E. McFarland and Rodney T.
`
`Whisnant. A true and correct copy of the ’633 patent as Exhibit C. The ’633 patent is owned by
`
`Micrografx.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google has infringed and continues to infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’633 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling in the United States and
`
`by importing into the United States mobile phones, tablets, mobile applications, software, and
`
`Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”) that infringe one or more claims of the ’633
`
`patent. Upon information and belief, the mobile phones and tablets include applications, such as
`
`  15
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 16 of 22 PageID 195
`
`Google Maps, that access and/or are operable to access an external shape stored outside the
`
`application and delegate the production of a graphical image of the external shape. For example,
`
`at least the following systems directly infringe the ’633 patent:
`
`• Google Nexus 4
`• Google Nexus 5
`• Google Nexus 7
`• Google Nexus 10
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, Motorola has infringed and continues to infringe
`
`
`
`one or more claims of the ’633 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling in the United States and
`
`by importing into the United States mobile phones that infringe one or more claims of the ’633
`
`patent. Upon information and belief, the mobile phones include applications, such as Google
`
`Maps, that access and/or are operable to access an external shape stored outside the application
`
`and delegate the production of a graphical image of the external shape. For example, at least the
`
`following systems directly infringe the ’633 patent:
`
`• Moto X
`• Moto G
`• Droid Razr M
`• Droid Razr HD
`• Droid Razr Maxx HD
`• Droid Ultra
`• Droid Mini
`• Droid Maxx
`• Photon Q 4G
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola each induce and continue to
`
`
`
`induce infringement of the ’633 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by encouraging
`
`customers, subsidiaries, resellers, or other third parties to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import
`
`the accused instrumentalities identified in paragraphs 42-43 above. Such making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, or importing of the accused instrumentalities of paragraph 42-43 above
`
`  16
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-03595-N Document 39 Filed 12/06/13 Page 17 of 22 PageID 196
`
`constitutes infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of
`
`the ’633 patent by such customers, subsidiaries, resellers, or third parties. Google and Motorola
`
`intend their subsidiaries, resellers, customers, or other third parties to make, use, sell, offer to
`
`sell, or import the accused instrumentalities of paragraphs 42-43 above and encourage
`
`infringement by: providing the accused instrumentalities in paragraphs 42-43 above that access
`
`and/or are operable to access an external shape stored outside the application and delegate the
`
`production of a graphical image of the external shape and thus infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’633 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; providing other components of and
`
`accessories for the