` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 28 PageID 734
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`§§§§
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-00561
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`FRACTUS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Fractus, S.A. (“Fractus” or “Plaintiff”) hereby submits this Complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. (“Defendant,” “ZTE,” or “ZTE (USA)”).1
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Fractus, S.A. is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the
`
`laws of Spain with its principal place of business in Barcelona, Spain.
`
`2.
`
`Fractus is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,394,432 (the “’432 patent”), 7,397,431 (the “’431 patent”), 8,941,541 (the “’541 patent”),
`
`8,976,069 (the “’069 patent”), 9,054,421 (the “’421 patent”), 9,240,632 (the “’632 patent”), and
`
`9,362,617 (the “’617 patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`3.
`
`Fractus is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant ZTE
`
`(USA), Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZTE Corp., and is a corporation organized and
`
`
`1 Fractus agreed to dismiss ZTE Corporation (the Chinese parent corporation) and ZTE (TX),
`Inc. pursuant to an Agreement between the parties. That Agreement remains in effect.
`1
`
`
`
`§§§
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§
`
`FRACTUS, S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`ZTE (USA), INC.,
`ZTE (TX), INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 2 of 28 PageID 735
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, having a principal place of business at
`
`2425 North Central Expressway, Suite 800, Richardson, Texas 75080. ZTE (USA), Inc. may be
`
`served through its agent Incorp Services, Inc., 815 Brazos, Suite 500, Richardson, Texas 78701.
`
`Fractus is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that ZTE (USA), Inc., operates as ZTE
`
`Corp.’s general agent within Texas and “is the conduit through which ZTE Corp. sells its
`
`commercial telecommunications equipment in the United States.” NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp.,
`
`No. 12-CV-3110-TOR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191196, at *6-7 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2013).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Fractus is informed and
`
`believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of
`
`patent infringement and/or has induced acts of patent infringement by others in this judicial
`
`district, the State of Texas, and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant maintains substantial,
`
`systematic, and continuous contacts with the State of Texas, and/or Defendant has purposefully
`
`directed infringing activities at residents of the State of Texas, and this litigation results from
`
`those infringing activities. Defendant regularly imports, sells (either directly or indirectly),
`
`markets, and supports its products and services within this district. Defendant is subject to this
`
`Court’s specific and/or general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas
`
`Long Arm Statute, due at least to its substantial and pervasive business in this State and judicial
`
`district, including: (i) at least part of its infringing activities alleged herein; and (ii) regularly
`
`doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving substantial
`
`revenue from goods sold and services provided to Texas residents.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 3 of 28 PageID 736
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 4 of 28 PageID 737
`
`
`
`8.
`
`ZTE (USA) maintains a regular and established place of business in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, in addition to its headquarters in Richardson, TX. In early 2016, ZTE (USA)
`
`established a call center at 6865 Windcrest Drive, Plano, TX 75024, within the Eastern District.
`
`The call center is a regular and established facility. A ZTE document announced that “ZTE
`
`Establish [sic] Local Call Center.” According to this ZTE document, the Plano call center has
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 5 of 28 PageID 738
`
`“60+ dedicated ZTE representatives on customer service to build brand loyalty with exceptional
`
`customer experience.” That document also includes a photograph of the Plano call center
`
`employees wearing ZTE clothing while answering calls to promote ZTE’s local presence in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. See ZTE-FRCT0000544 (below). The document demonstrates ZTE’s
`
`belief that it “established” a facility in Plano, which is within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE contracts with iQor, who owns or leases the Plano
`
`Call Center. iQor hires employees to work at the facility. On information and belief, other ZTE
`
`employees and representatives visit and work at the Plano call center on a full-time or part-time
`
`basis, supervising and training the ZTE call center representatives. Any customer in the United
`
`States who calls ZTE Customer Service is directed to the Plano call center or a second call center
`
`overseas. To the outside world, the Plano call center is a ZTE call center.
`
`10.
`
`A ZTE customer who engages in on-line communications or calls the call center
`
`would understand he or she is communicating with a ZTE representative. In addition to the Plano
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 6 of 28 PageID 739
`
`call center, ZTE has also integrated its online customer support with iQor. When a ZTE customer
`
`wants to obtain a User Guide for a particular ZTE phone, the user is directed to a joint ZTE/iQor
`
`customer support web page from which the ZTE User Manual can be downloaded. (http://zte-
`
`iqorsupport.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5448/~/how-do-i-get-the-user-guide-for-the-
`
`majesty-pro-plus-%28z899vl%29-with-tracfone%3F). When
`
`a
`
`customer
`
`selects
`
`the
`
`“Troubleshooting” icon on ZTE’s customer support page, the website takes the customer to a joint
`
`ZTE/iQor page (zte-iqorsupport.custhelp.com). When a customer wishes to chat with a “member
`
`of our [ZTE] support team” online, the customer is directed to another joint ZTE/iQor page. And
`
`when a ZTE customer calls the call center for support regarding a ZTE phone, representatives
`
`answer the phone, “Thank you for calling ZTE, this is NAME.” Thus, the ZTE/iQor customer
`
`support facility assists customers in using and operating their ZTE telephone to make telephone
`
`calls and to transmit and receive data, which are activities that directly infringe the Fractus Patents
`
`identified in this Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`ZTE (USA) maintains a significant connection to the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ZTE (USA) has its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas. Richardson, Texas lies partly
`
`within this judicial district in Collin County, Texas. Fractus is informed and believes, and on that
`
`basis alleges, that ZTE (USA) openly represents its presence and involvement in Richardson,
`
`Texas, as well as more generally in Collin County, which is within this district. ZTE (USA)
`
`advertises job openings for positions based in Richardson and is closely involved with the
`
`Richardson Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Lixin Cheng, Senior Vice President of ZTE Corporation,
`
`President of ZTE North America Mobile Devices Business Unit, and Chairman and CEO of ZTE
`
`USA stated “ZTE is proud to be headquartered in Richardson and honored to be recognized by the
`
`Richardson community for our 15-year track record of creating jobs, delivering innovation and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 7 of 28 PageID 740
`
`serving the communities in which we live and work in the U.S. . . . . We look forward to
`
`strengthening our relationship with local partners and co-developing Richardson’s thriving
`
`economy.”
`
`See
`
`http://enterprise.zte.com.cn/us/about_us/news_center/news/201401/
`
`t20140124_417216.html. ZTE has similarly touted its involvement with other civic organizations
`
`in Collin County. See https://www.mckinneyonline.com/news/community-involvement/boys-and-
`
`girls-clubs-of-collin-county-in-new-partnership-with-zte-usa/. Mr. Lixin Chang again stated that
`
`“Giving back to the communities in which we live and work is very important to us and speaks to
`
`ZTE’s mission to help people around the world connect with one another in meaningful ways . . .
`
`.” Id. ZTE (USA) also receives benefits from this district. ZTE (USA) has numerous employees
`
`residing in the district, including all three of its directors registered with the Texas Secretary of
`
`State (including Mr. Lixin Chang).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Fractus Technology
`
`12.
`
`Fractus is a company specializing in advanced antenna technologies based in
`
`Barcelona, Spain. Fractus was founded by two college friends, Ruben Bonet and Carles Puente.
`
`Dr. Puente, a Professor at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, is the lead inventor on the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Dr. Puente’s early research work focused on fractal antennas and evolved over
`
`time into the widely applicable and flexible antenna designs that appear in and are covered by the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. While these designs have their origins in fractal antenna designs, they are not
`
`themselves fractal antennas. Instead, the antenna designs adhere to rules that allow the reuse of
`
`antenna regions during operation in multiple frequency bands while eliminating the requirement
`
`of a self-repeating shape as was required in fractal designs. By implementing the concepts
`
`disclosed in the Patents-in-Suit, the inventions permit antennas to operate at increased numbers of
`
`frequency bands while simultaneously reducing their size, allowing greater performance within
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 8 of 28 PageID 741
`
`smaller spaces.
`
`13.
`
`Fractus has designed antennas for and/or has licensed the right to use its
`
`technology to much of the mobile antenna community, including HTC, Kyocera, LG, Palm,
`
`Pantech, RIM, Motorola, Samsung, Sharp, and UTStarcom. Fractus continues to develop
`
`antennas, including antennas for use in cellular phones. Since its incorporation Fractus has
`
`cumulatively sold more than 40 million antennas to customers. Among the numerous awards and
`
`honors the company has received for its innovative work, Fractus won the 2004 Frost & Sullivan
`
`Award for technological innovation, was named a 2005 Davos World Economic Forum
`
`Technology Pioneer and one of Red Herring’s top innovative companies for 2006. Fractus
`
`inventors were finalists for the EPO European Inventor Award in 2014, and on April 2017 Fractus
`
`received the “European Inspiring Company Award” by the London Stock Exchange and the Elite
`
`Group.
`
`ZTE’s Infringing Products
`
`14.
`
`ZTE makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports Infringing Products in the
`
`United States, including but not limited to, the following examples of infringing mobile devices:
`
`Atrium, Avid Plus, Avid Trio, Avid 828, Axon, Axon Pro, Blade Max 3, Blade Spark, Blade
`
`Vantage, Blade X Max, Blade Z Max, Cymbal C LTE, Grand X 3, Grand X 4, Jasper LTE,
`
`Majesty Pro LTE, Maven, Maven 2, Maven 3, Max Blue LTE, Max +, Merit, Midnight Pro LTE,
`
`Obsidian, Overture 2, Overture 3, Paragon, Prelude 2, Prelude +, Prestige, Scend, Solar, Sonata 2,
`
`Sonata 3, Speed, Tempo, Tempo X, Unico, Warp 7, Warp Sync, Whirl 2, Z223, Z432, ZFive 2,
`
`Zinger, ZMax 2, ZMax Champ, ZMax Grand, and ZMax Pro. The above list is not exhaustive.
`
`Fractus’ investigation of ZTE’s Infringing Products is ongoing, and the above list will expand as
`
`warranted to include additional Infringing Products with similarly designed antennas.
`
`15.
`
`Each of the accused devices includes an internal, multiband antenna such as the
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 9 of 28 PageID 742
`
`one depicted below from the Sonata 2.
`
`
`The antennas in the Infringing Products are not fractal, but are made up of multiple
`
`16.
`
`levels of detail. The overall shape of the antenna is one level of detail. The overall shape is made
`
`up of another level of detail consisting of smaller electromagnetically connected elements of
`
`different sizes. As can be seen in the image above, the majority of the individual elements remain
`
`identifiable because at least 50 percent of their perimeters remain free. These electromagnetically
`
`connected elements form different paths or regions on which the currents associated with the
`
`multiple frequency bands flow while the antenna is operating. On information and belief, the
`
`associated currents flow in different regions of the antenna depending on the frequency band at
`
`which the antenna is operating, although there will always be some regions in common among the
`
`different frequency bands. Rather than having a separate antenna for each frequency band of
`
`operation, the antennas in the Infringing Products obtain multiband performance by reusing the
`
`same antenna regions across their multiple bands of operation. The simulation figures below show
`
`the active regions of the Sonata 2 antenna at two of its operational frequencies, 850 MHz and
`
`1900 MHz, with blue colors indicating inactive regions. As can be seen, both frequencies reuse
`
`some of the same portions of the antenna during operation.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 10 of 28 PageID 743
`
`
`On information and belief, the radioelectric performance of the antennas is similar
`
`17.
`
`between the multiple frequency bands of operation. Cell phone antennas require omnidirectional
`
`radiation patterns to ensure proper operation regardless of the orientation of the cell phone in
`
`relation to the cell tower. Additionally, on information and belief, the impedance levels of the
`
`antennas must fall within certain ranges (typically measured using a standing wave ratio (SWR)
`
`of 4.0 or less) to ensure sufficient transmitting power and adequate battery life for the cell phone.
`
`The measured radiation patterns for the Sonata 2 antenna at two of its operational frequency bands
`
`are shown below. As can be seen, they are substantially similar and omnidirectional.
`
`The measured SWR for the Sonata 2 antenna is also shown below, and is substantially similar
`
`across the operational frequency bands.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 11 of 28 PageID 744
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 12 of 28 PageID 745
`
`Notice & Willfulness
`
`18.
`
`On March 4, 2016, Fractus notified the Chief Legal Officer at ZTE Corp., Mr.
`
`Xiaoming Guo, by
`
`letter
`
`that Fractus believed ZTE was
`
`infringing
`
`its patents.
`
`FRACZTE0019887. The letter provided a list of Fractus’ patent portfolio and specifically
`
`identified certain exemplary ZTE products and Fractus patents that those products were
`
`infringing, including several of the Patents-in-Suit. For example, the letter identifies ’431 patent
`
`claims 14 and 30 and the ’069 patent as being infringed by ZTE’s products. It also identifies the
`
`ZTE Warp Sync and Zinger as infringing products.
`
`19.
`
`Following the chart, the letter states:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 13 of 28 PageID 746
`
`20.
`
`Exhibit I to the letter lists a number of Fractus’ patents, including the ’431, ’432,
`
`’069, ’541, and ’421 patents. Exhibit II lists 16 ZTE phones the letter describes as “exemplary
`
`ZTE products that each infringe[] one or more of the patents listed in Exhibit I.” Included in the
`
`list are the ZTE Warp Sync, Zinger, Obsidian, and Whirl 2.
`
`21.
`
`Fractus received confirmation from its courier that the March 3, 2016 notice letter
`
`was delivered and signed for by ZTE on March 7, 2016.
`
`22.
`
`On April 29, 2016, representatives from Fractus met in-person with representatives
`
`from ZTE in Shenzen, China. Ruben Bonet, Jordi Ilario, and Zhao Le attended on behalf of
`
`Fractus, and Yao (“Amy”) Mi and Raojie (“Joseph”) Yuan attended on behalf of ZTE. Ms. Mi
`
`and Mr. Yuan identified themselves as Licensing Managers.
`
`23.
`
`At the meeting, Fractus presented a 23-page slide show highlighting the company
`
`and its patent portfolio. FRACZTE0019894. Slide 10 of the presentation stated that Fractus has
`
`292 United States patent claims covering multilevel antennas, including “16 claims confirmed as
`
`patentable after Ex-Parte Reexamination of ’431 and ’432 patents.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 14 of 28 PageID 747
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 15 of 28 PageID 748
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 16 of 28 PageID 749
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 17 of 28 PageID 750
`
`28.
`
`ZTE’s willful infringement is further highlighted by its continued sales of
`
`infringing products after its April 29, 2016 meeting with Fractus. At that meeting, Fractus
`
`identified specific claims of five of the Patents-in-Suit that were infringed by specific ZTE
`
`phones. Fractus also notified ZTE that two of the Patents-in-Suit had undergone reexamination.
`
`ZTE chose not to modify its behavior in response to Fractus’ allegations. ZTE’s continued sale of
`
`these phones (and others with similar antennas) despite its knowledge that the phones infringed
`
`Fractus’ patents was deliberate, egregious, consciously wrongful, and willful, well beyond a
`
`typical infringement case.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,394,432
`
`29.
`
`On July 1, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,394,432 was duly and legally issued
`
`for an invention entitled “Multilevel Antenna.” The claims of the ’432 patent were amended
`
`during an ex parte reexamination that was initiated by Samsung, and a Reexamination Certificate
`
`was issued for the claims in their current form on April 7, 2015.
`
`30.
`
`The ’432 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`31.
`
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 6 of the ’432
`
`patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of Infringing Products,
`
`including but not limited to certain mobile phones with internal antennas such as those described
`
`above in paragraphs 14-17.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’432 Patent and has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least claim 6 of the ’432 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has
`
`induced, caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make,
`
`use, sell, offer for sale and/or import Infringing Products. Defendant has done so by acts including
`
`but not limited to selling Infringing Products to its customers; marketing Infringing Products; and
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 18 of 28 PageID 751
`
`providing instructions, technical support, and direct links to vendor websites (available via
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/products/all-phones/ and https://www.zteusa.com/support_page/,
`
`for
`
`instance) for the use of Infringing Products. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually resulted in direct infringement, including the making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importation of Infringing Products in the United States.
`
`33.
`
`As of at least March 4, 2016, Defendant’s infringement of the ’432 Patent has been
`
`willful.
`
`34.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendant have caused damage to Fractus, and
`
`Fractus is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Fractus as a result of
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of Fractus’
`
`exclusive rights under the ’432 Patent by Defendant has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`Fractus, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,397,431
`
`35.
`
`On July 8, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,397,431 was duly and legally issued
`
`for an invention entitled “Multilevel Antennae.” The claims of the ’431 patent were amended
`
`during an ex parte reexamination that was initiated by Samsung, and a Reexamination Certificate
`
`was issued for the claims in their current form on March 31, 2015.
`
`36.
`
`The ’431 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`37.
`
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 14 of the
`
`’431 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of Infringing
`
`Products, including but not limited to certain mobile phones with internal antennas such as those
`
`described above in paragraphs 14-17.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 19 of 28 PageID 752
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’431 Patent and indirectly infringes at least claim
`
`14 of the ’431 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced,
`
`caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell,
`
`offer for sale and/or import Infringing Products. Defendant has done so by acts including but not
`
`limited to selling Infringing Products to its customers; marketing Infringing Products; and
`
`providing instructions, technical support, and direct links to vendor websites (available via
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/products/all-phones/ and https://www.zteusa.com/support_page/,
`
`for
`
`instance) for the use of Infringing Products. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually resulted in direct infringement, including the making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importation of Infringing Products in the United States.
`
`39.
`
`As of at least March 4, 2016, Defendant’s infringement of the ’431 Patent has been
`
`willful.
`
`40.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendant have caused damage to Fractus, and
`
`Fractus is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Fractus as a result of
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of Fractus’
`
`exclusive rights under the ’431 Patent by Defendant has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`Fractus, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,941,541
`
`41.
`
`On January 27, 2015, United States Patent No. 8,941,541 was duly and legally
`
`issued for an invention entitled “Multilevel Antennae.”
`
`42.
`
`The ’541 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`43.
`
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 17 of the
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 20 of 28 PageID 753
`
`’541 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of Infringing
`
`Products, including but not limited to certain mobile phones with internal antennas such as those
`
`described above in paragraphs 14-17.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’541 Patent and indirectly infringes at least claim
`
`17 of the ’541 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced,
`
`caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell,
`
`offer for sale and/or import Infringing Products. Defendant has done so by acts including but not
`
`limited to selling Infringing Products to its customers; marketing Infringing Products; and
`
`providing instructions, technical support, and direct links to vendor websites (available via
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/products/all-phones/ and https://www.zteusa.com/support_page/,
`
`for
`
`instance) for the use of Infringing Products. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually resulted in direct infringement, including the making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importation of Infringing Products in the United States.
`
`45.
`
`As of at least March 4, 2016, Defendant’s infringement of the ’541 Patent has been
`
`willful.
`
`46.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendant have caused damage to Fractus, and
`
`Fractus is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Fractus as a result of
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of Fractus’
`
`exclusive rights under the ’541 Patent by Defendant has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`Fractus, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,976,069
`
`47.
`
`On March 10, 2015, United States Patent No. 8,976,069 was duly and legally
`
`issued for an invention entitled “Multilevel Antennae.”
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 21 of 28 PageID 754
`
`48.
`
`The ’069 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`49.
`
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 32 of the
`
`’069 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of Infringing
`
`Products, including but not limited to certain mobile phones with internal antennas such as those
`
`described above in paragraphs 14-17.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’069 Patent and indirectly infringes at least claim
`
`32 of the ’069 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced,
`
`caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell,
`
`offer for sale and/or import Infringing Products. Defendant has done so by acts including but not
`
`limited to selling Infringing Products to its customers; marketing Infringing Products; and
`
`providing instructions, technical support, and direct links to vendor websites (available via
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/products/all-phones/ and https://www.zteusa.com/support_page/,
`
`for
`
`instance) for the use of Infringing Products. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually resulted in direct infringement, including the making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importation of Infringing Products in the United States.
`
`51.
`
`As of at least March 4, 2016, Defendant’s infringement of the ’069 Patent has been
`
`willful.
`
`52.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendant have caused damage to Fractus, and
`
`Fractus is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Fractus as a result of
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of Fractus’
`
`exclusive rights under the ’069 Patent by Defendant has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`Fractus, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 22 of 28 PageID 755
`
`by this Court.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,054,421
`
`53.
`
`On June 9, 2015, United States Patent No. 9,054,421 was duly and legally
`
`issued for an invention entitled “Multilevel Antennae.”
`
`54.
`
`The ’421 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`55.
`
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’421
`
`patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of Infringing Products,
`
`including but not limited to certain mobile phones with internal antennas such as those described
`
`above in paragraphs 14-17.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’421 Patent and indirectly infringes at least claim
`
`1 of the ’421 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced,
`
`caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell,
`
`offer for sale and/or import Infringing Products. Defendant has done so by acts including but not
`
`limited to selling Infringing Products to its customers; marketing Infringing Products; and
`
`providing instructions, technical support, and direct links to vendor websites (available via
`
`https://www.zteusa.com/products/all-phones/ and https://www.zteusa.com/support_page/,
`
`for
`
`instance) for the use of Infringing Products. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually resulted in direct infringement, including the making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importation of Infringing Products in the United States.
`
`57.
`
`As of at least March 4, 2016, Defendant’s infringement of the ’421 Patent has been
`
`willful.
`
`58.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendant have caused damage to Fractus, and
`
`Fractus is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Fractus as a result of
`22
`
`
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:18-cv-02838-K Document 70 Filed 05/16/18 Page 23 of 28 PageID 756
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of Fractus’
`
`exclusive rights under the ’421 Patent by Defendant has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`Fractus, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,240,632
`
`59.
`
`On January 19, 2016, United States Patent No. 9,240,632 was duly and legally
`
`issued for an invention entitled “Multilevel Antennae.”
`
`60.
`
`The ’632 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`61.
`
`ZTE has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 17 of the
`
`’632 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of Infringing
`
`Products, including but not limited to certain mobile phones with internal antennas such as those
`
`described above in paragraphs 14-17.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’632 Patent and indirectly infringes at least claim
`
`17 of the ’632 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced,
`
`caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect