Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-385
`
`Jury Trial Requested
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This is an action for patent infringement in which Ancora Technologies, Inc. makes the
`
`following allegations against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Samsung”):
`
`RELATED CASE
`
`1.
`
`This case is related to the action Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et
`
`al., filed June 21, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco
`
`Division.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business at 23977 S.E. 10th Street, Sammamish,
`
`Washington 98075.
`
`3962538v1/014360
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 18
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the Republic of Korea with a principal place of business at 129, Samsung-ro,
`
`Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea 443-742.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`corporation of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. organized and existing under the laws of New York
`
`with a principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660 and
`
`offices and/or other facilities in Texas at least at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754; 2800
`
`Wells Branch Pkwy, Austin, TX 78728; 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082; and
`
`6635 Declaration Drive, Plano, TX 75023.
`
`5.
`
`Further, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. merged with Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America LLC in January 2015. Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01165-JRG (E.D. Tex.) at Dkt. 34. Prior
`
`to such merger, Samsung Telecommunications America LLC was involved in the sales and
`
`distribution of Samsung-branded consumer electronics products in the United States.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is liable for
`
`any act for which Samsung Telecommunications America LLC otherwise would be or would have
`
`been liable, including for any infringement alleged in this matter, and references herein to Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. should be understood to encompass such acts by Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America LLC.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 3 of 18
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. because, directly or through intermediaries, each has committed
`
`acts within the Western District of Texas giving rise to this action and/or has established minimum
`
`contacts with the Western District of Texas such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`10.
`
`For example, Samsung Electronics America maintains regular and established place
`
`offices in the Western District of Texas, including at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754 and
`
`2800 Wells Branch Pkwy, Austin, TX 78728.
`
`11.
`
`Further, on information and belief, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. directs and controls
`
`the actions of Samsung Electronics America such that it too maintains regular and established offices
`
`in the Western District of Texas, including at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754, and 2800
`
`Wells Branch Pkwy, Austin, TX 78728.
`
`12.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. also owns and operates a manufacturing facility in
`
`Austin, Texas.
`
`13.
`
`In addition, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`have placed or contributed to placing infringing products like the Samsung Galaxy S7 into the stream
`
`of commerce via an established distribution channel knowing or understanding that such products
`
`would be sold and used in the United States, including in the Western District of Texas.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. also have each derived substantial revenues from infringing acts in the Western
`
`District of Texas, including from the sale and use of infringing products like the Samsung Galaxy S7.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 4 of 18
`
`16.
`
`In particular, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the Republic of Korea, and Samsung Electronics America has maintained regular
`
`and established places of business at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754 and 2800 Wells
`
`Branch Pkwy, Austin, TX 78728. In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018); In re Cray
`
`Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENT
`
`17.
`
`This lawsuit asserts causes of action for infringement of United States Patent No.
`
`6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”), which is entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation Within a
`
`License Limitation.” A true and correct copy of the ’941 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`18.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the ’941 patent on June
`
`25, 2002.
`
`19.
`
`Subsequent to issue, and at least by December 21, 2004, all right, title, and interest in
`
`the ’941 patent, including the sole right to sue for any infringement, were assigned to Ancora
`
`Technologies, Inc., which has held, and continues to hold, all right, title, and interest in the ’941
`
`patent.
`
`20.
`
`The president of Ancora Technologies, Inc.—Mr. Miki Mullor—is one of the
`
`inventors of the ’941 patent.
`
`21.
`
`A reexamination certificate to the ’941 patent subsequently was issued on June 1,
`
`2010. A true and correct copy of that certificate is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`22.
`
`Since being assigned to Ancora Technologies, Inc., the ’941 patent has been asserted
`
`in patent infringement actions filed against Microsoft Corporation, Dell Incorporated, Hewlett
`
`Packard Incorporated, Toshiba America Information Systems, Apple Incorporated, HTC America,
`
`Inc., and HTC Corporation.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 5 of 18
`
`23.
`
`In the course of these litigations, a number of the’941 patent’s claim terms have been
`
`construed and the validity of the ’941 patent has repeatedly been affirmed.
`
`24.
`
`For example, in December 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern
`
`District of California issued a claim construction order construing the terms (1) “volatile memory”;
`
`(2) “non-volatile memory”; (3) “BIOS”; (4) “program”; (5) “license record”; and (6) “verifying the
`
`program using at least the verification structure.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 11–CV–
`
`06357 YGR, 2012 WL 6738761, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012).
`
`25.
`
`Further, in its order, the court rejected Apple’s indefiniteness arguments and further
`
`held that, at least with respect to Claims 1-3 and 5-17, “[t]he steps of the Claim do not need to be
`
`performed in the order recited.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 11–CV–06357 YGR, 2012
`
`WL 6738761, at *5, 13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012).
`
`26.
`
`Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the
`
`district court’s rejection of Apple’s indefiniteness argument. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744
`
`F.3d 732, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`27.
`
`Further, the Federal Circuit agreed with Ancora Technologies, Inc. that “the district
`
`court erred in construing ‘program’ to mean ‘a set of instructions for software applications that can
`
`be executed by a computer’”—holding that, as Ancora had argued, the term should be accorded its
`
`normal meaning of “‘a set of instructions’ for a computer.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744
`
`F.3d 732, 734-35, 737 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`28.
`
`Further, in a recent decision, the Federal Circuit again affirmed the validity of the
`
`’941 patent—stating: “[W]e conclude that claim 1 of the ’941 patent is not directed to an abstract
`
`idea.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as amended (Nov. 20,
`
`2018).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 6 of 18
`
`29.
`
`In addition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected HTC’s request to institute
`
`covered business method review proceedings on the ’941 patent—explaining that “the ’941 patent’s
`
`solution to the addressed problem is rooted in technology, and thus, is a ‘technical solution’” and
`
`also rejecting HTC’s argument that “the ’941 patent recites a technological solution that is not novel
`
`and nonobvious.” A true and correct copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`COUNT 1 – INFRINGEMENT
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as if fully set
`
`forth herein and further state:
`
`31.
`
`Samsung has infringed the ’941 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, prior to
`
`the expiration of the ’941 patent, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States, without authorization, products that are capable of performing at
`
`least Claim 1 of the ’941 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and/or, without
`
`authorization, causing products to perform each step of at least Claim 1 of the ’941 patent.
`
`32.
`
`At a minimum, such Accused Products include those servers/software utilized by
`
`Samsung to transmit an over-the-air (“OTA”) software update, as well as those smartphones and
`
`other devices and technology that received from Samsung, or received at Samsung’s direction, an
`
`OTA update that caused such device to perform the method recited in Claim 1 prior to the expiration
`
`of the ’941 patent.
`
`33.
`
`Such Accused Products include products like the Samsung Galaxy S7, which—as
`
`detailed below—is configured by Samsung such that it is capable of performing each step of Claim 1
`
`of the ’941 patent and to which Samsung provided one or more OTA updates on or about February
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 7 of 18
`
`17, February 21, March 7, April 21, and May 8, 2017, that would cause a Samsung Galaxy S7 device
`
`to perform each step of Claim 1 in order to upgrade its operating system to Android 7.0.1
`
`34.
`
`Such Accused Products also include products like the Samsung Admire, Samsung
`
`Captivate Glide, Samsung Conquer 4G, Samsung Dart, Samsung DoubleTime, Samsung Droid
`
`Charge, Samsung Epic 4G Touch, Samsung Exhibit 4G, Samsung Exhibit II 4G, Samsung Fascinate
`
`4G, Samsung Galaxy Ace, Samsung Galaxy Fit, Samsung Galaxy Gio, Samsung Galaxy Giorgio
`
`Armani Galaxy S, Samsung Galaxy Indulge, Samsung Galaxy M Pro, Samsung Galaxy mini,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Samsung Galaxy Nexus CDMA, Samsung Galaxy Note, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Note, Samsung Galaxy Pop i559, Samsung Galaxy Prevail, Samsung Galaxy Pro, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Q T589R, Samsung Galaxy R, Samsung Galaxy S 4G, Samsung Galaxy S II, Samsung Galaxy S
`
`Plus, Samsung Galaxy S WiFi 5.0, Samsung Galaxy SL, Samsung Galaxy W, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Xcover, Samsung Galaxy Y, Samsung Google Nexus S 4G, Samsung Gravity SMART, Samsung
`
`Illusion, Samsung Indulge, Samsung Infuse 4G, Samsung M220L Galaxy Neo, Samsung Replenish,
`
`Samsung Repp, Samsung Sidekick 4G SGH-T839, Samsung Stratosphere, Samsung Transfix,
`
`Samsung Transform Ultra, Samsung Exhilarate, Samsung Galaxy Ace 2, Samsung Galaxy Ace
`
`Advance S6800, Samsung Galaxy Ace DUOS, Samsung Galaxy Ace Duos S6802, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Ace II X S7560M, Samsung Galaxy Ace Plus, Samsung Galaxy Admire 4G, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Appeal, Samsung Galaxy Attain 4G, Samsung Galaxy Axiom, Samsung Galaxy Beam I8530,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Camera GC100, Samsung Galaxy Chat, Samsung Galaxy Discover, Samsung
`
`Galaxy Exhilarate, Samsung Galaxy M Style M340S, Samsung Galaxy mini 2, Samsung Galaxy
`
`
`1 This description of infringement is illustrative and not intended to be an exhaustive or limiting
`explanation of every manner in which each Accused Product infringes the ’941 patent. Further, on
`information and belief, the identified functionality of the Samsung Galaxy S7 are representative of
`components and functionality present in all Accused Products.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 8 of 18
`
`Music, Samsung Galaxy Nexus I9250M, Samsung Galaxy Nexus LTE L700, Samsung Galaxy Note
`
`II, Samsung Galaxy Note LTE G, Samsung Galaxy Player 70 Plus, Samsung Galaxy Pocket,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Pop Plus S5570i, Samsung Galaxy Premier, Samsung Galaxy Proclaim S720C,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Reverb, Samsung Galaxy Rugby Pro, Samsung Galaxy Rush Galaxy Rush,
`
`Samsung Galaxy S Advance, Samsung Galaxy S Blaze 4G, Samsung Galaxy S III, Samsung Galaxy
`
`S III mini, Samsung Galaxy S Lightray 4G, Samsung Galaxy S Relay 4G, Samsung Galaxy Stellar,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Stellar 4G I200, Samsung Galaxy Stratosphere II, Samsung Galaxy Victory 4G
`
`LTE, Samsung Rugby Smart, Samsung Galaxy Core, Samsung Galaxy Exhibit, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Express, Samsung Galaxy Fame, Samsung Galaxy Grand, Samsung Galaxy Mega 5.8, Samsung
`
`Galaxy Mega 6.3, Samsung Galaxy Pocket Neo, Samsung Galaxy Pocket Plus, Samsung Galaxy S4,
`
`Samsung Galaxy S4 Active, Samsung Galaxy S4 CDMA, Samsung Galaxy S4 mini, Samsung
`
`Galaxy S4 Zoom, Samsung Galaxy Star, Samsung Galaxy Star S5280, Samsung Galaxy Trend II
`
`Duos S7572, Samsung Galaxy Win, Samsung Galaxy Win I8550, Samsung Galaxy Xcover 2,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Y Plus S5303, Samsung Galaxy Young, Samsung Gravity Q, Samsung Galaxy S5
`
`mini, Samsung Galaxy Core Prime, Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Samsung Galaxy S3 Neo, Samsung
`
`Galaxy S5, Samsung Galaxy S5 Active, Samsung Galaxy Note 5, Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+,
`
`Samsung Galaxy E5, Samsung Galaxy Note5, Samsung Galaxy S6, , Samsung Galaxy S6 Active,
`
`Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, Samsung Galaxy J2 Prime, Samsung Galaxy S7, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Express Prime 3, Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime Plus, Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Note7, Samsung Galaxy S7, Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Samsung
`
`Galaxy J2, Samsung Galaxy J3, Samsung Galaxy J3 Emerge, Samsung Galaxy J7 Sky Pro, Samsung
`
`Galaxy Note 8, Samsung Galaxy S8, Samsung Galaxy S8 Active, Samsung Galaxy S8+, Samsung
`
`Galaxy A6, Samsung Galaxy J3, Samsung Galaxy J7, Samsung Galaxy Note 9, Samsung Galaxy S9,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 9 of 18
`
`Samsung Galaxy S9+, Samsung Galaxy Player 5, Samsung Galaxy S WiFi 3.6, Samsung Galaxy Tab
`
`10.1, Samsung Galaxy Tab 4G LTE, Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus, Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9, Samsung Galaxy Tab Wi-Fi, Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Note LTE 10.1 N8020, Samsung Galaxy Player 3.6, Samsung Galaxy Player 4.2, Samsung Galaxy
`
`Tab 2, Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 (10.1), Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 (7.0), Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 (7.0)
`
`LTE, Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 I705, Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 LTE,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 4G P7320T, Samsung Google Nexus 10, Samsung Google Nexus 10
`
`P8110, Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0, Samsung Galaxy S 4, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Samsung
`
`Galaxy Tab 3, Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 P5200, Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 7.0 P3200, Samsung
`
`Galaxy Tab 3 8.0, Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 10.1, Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 7.0, Samsung Galaxy Tab 4
`
`8.0, Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 10.1, Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4, Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5,
`
`Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4, Samsung Galaxy Tab A, Samsung Galaxy Tab E, Samsung Galaxy Tab
`
`S2 8.0 (/VE) (/VE_N)+B962, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 32GB White, Samsung Galaxy Tab A 7.0
`
`and 10.1, Samsung Galaxy Tab S3, and Samsung Galaxy Tab S4, to which Samsung provided an
`
`OTA update prior to the expiration of the ’941 patent.
`
`35.
`
`For example, Claim 1 of the ’941 patent claims “a method of restricting software
`
`operation within a license for use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area
`
`of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method comprising the steps of: [1]
`
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory, [2] using an agent to set up a verification
`
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating
`
`data that includes at least one license record, [3] verifying the program using at least the verification
`
`structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and [4] acting on the program
`
`according to the verification.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 10 of 18
`
`36. When Samsung transmitted an OTA update like those it sent on or about on or about
`
`February 17, February 21, March 7, April 21, and May 8, 2017, Samsung performed and/or caused to
`
`be performed each of these elements as part of what is described as “verified boot”:
`
`
`https://source.android.com/security/verifiedboot.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In particular, each Samsung Galaxy S7 contains both erasable, non-volatile memory
`
`in the form of ROM and volatile memory in the form of RAM.
`
`38.
`
`Further, each Samsung Galaxy S7 was configured by Samsung to perform the below
`
`described process (or one substantially like it) in order to install an OTA update:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/nonab.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`During this process, a program running on one or more OTA servers owned and/or
`
`controlled by Samsung sets up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`
`BIOS of a Samsung Galaxy S7 by transmitting to the device an OTA update, which the Samsung
`
`Galaxy S7 is configured by Samsung to thereafter save to a cache or data partition of the erasable,
`
`non-volatile memory of its BIOS.
`
`40.
`
`This OTA update contains a verification structure that include data accommodating at
`
`least one license record. Examples of such a license record include a cryptographic signature or key:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/sign_builds.
`
`41.
`
`Such license record also may comprise a cryptographic hash or hash tree:
`
`
`https://source.android.com/security/verifiedboot/verified-boot.
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Once the verification structure has been set up in the BIOS, the Samsung Galaxy S7 is
`
`configured by Samsung to reboot into recovery mode, load the OTA update into its volatile memory
`
`(e.g., RAM), and use the at least one license record from the BIOS to verify the OTA update.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 13 of 18
`
`43.
`
`If the OTA update is verified, the Samsung Galaxy S7 is further configured to load
`
`and execute the update.
`
`44.
`
`In sum, as described above, once Samsung has set up the verification structure by
`
`transmitting to a device an OTA update like those Samsung provided on or about February 17,
`
`February 21, March 7, April 21, and May 8, 2017, each Accused Product is configured to
`
`automatically perform each of the remaining Claim 1 steps.
`
`45.
`
`Further, on information and belief, when Samsung provided an OTA update like those
`
`Samsung provided on or about February 17, February 21, March 7, April 21, and May 8, 2017,
`
`Samsung performed or caused to be performed each of the Claim 1 steps.
`
`46.
`
`Further, Samsung conditions participation in the OTA update process and the receipt
`
`of the benefit of a software update on the performance of each of the above steps.
`
`47.
`
`Primarily, as described above, Samsung pre-configures/programs each Accused
`
`Product to perform the above described steps upon receiving an OTA update from Samsung.
`
`48.
`
`Further, Samsung takes steps to ensure that each Accused Product cannot install an
`
`OTA update except by performing each of the above described steps.
`
`49.
`
`For example, Samsung precludes third parties from altering an Accused Product to
`
`allow it to install such updates in a different manner, including by stating in its Terms and
`
`Conditions that “installation of unauthorized software and unauthorized root access” voids
`
`Samsung’s Standard Limited Warranty. https://www.samsung.com/us/Legal/Phone-HSGuide/.
`
`50.
`
`Further, Samsung emphasizes the benefits associated with updating the software of its
`
`Accused Products.
`
`51.
`
`For example, Samsung has stated that “operating software” should be kept “up to date
`
`for the best experience”:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Samsung also identified the following specific benefits associated with updating a
`
`Samsung Galaxy S7 to Android 7.0—the update that Samsung released to such devices in the United
`
`States on or about February 17, February 21, March 7, April 21, and May 8, 2017:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-begins-rollout-of-android-7-0-nougat.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/what-are-the-new-features-of-android-7-0-
`nougat/.
`
`
`53.
`
`Samsung has made similar statements emphasizing the benefit of performing other
`
`OTA updates.
`
`54.
`
`Further, Samsung controlled the manner of the performance of such method. As set
`
`forth above, Samsung configured each Accused Product such that, upon receiving an OTA update, it
`
`would automatically perform each remaining step of the claimed method.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 17 of 18
`
`55.
`
`Samsung also controlled the timing of the performance of such method by
`
`determining when to utilize its OTA servers/software to set up a verification structure in each
`
`Accused Product.
`
`56.
`
`Samsung also had the right and ability to stop or limit infringement simply by not
`
`performing the initial step of using its OTA servers/software to set up a verification structure in each
`
`Accused Product. Absent this action by Samsung, the infringement at issue would not have occurred.
`
`57.
`
`Samsung’s infringement has caused damage to Ancora, and Ancora is entitled to
`
`recover from Samsung those damages Ancora has sustained as a result of Samsung’s infringement.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., have infringed United States Patent No. 6,411,941 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`B.
`
`Awarding damages to Ancora arising out of this infringement, including enhanced
`
`damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount
`
`according to proof;
`
`C.
`
`Awarding such other costs and relief the Court deems just and proper, including any
`
`relief that the Court may deem appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00385-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 18 of 18
`
`Date: June 21, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Charles Ainsworth
`
`Charles Ainsworth
`State Bar No. 00783521
`Robert Christopher Bunt
`State Bar No. 00787165
`PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
`100 E. Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, TX 75702
`903/531-3535
`E-mail: charley@pbatyler.com
`E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`