Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-00121
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP” or “Plaintiff”) files this original
`
`complaint against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) alleging, based on its own knowledge as to itself and its
`
`own actions, and based on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is a limited liability company filed under the
`
`laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business at 2815 Joelle Drive, Toledo, Ohio
`
`43617.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Apple is a company incorporated in California. Apple designs,
`
`manufactures, makes, uses, imports into the United States, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United
`
`States Apple smartphones and tablets. Apple’s smartphones and tablets are marketed, used,
`
`offered for sale, and/or sold throughout the United States, including within this district.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-2 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for infringement of United States patents arising under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).
`
`Apple is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction due at
`
`least to Apple’s substantial business in this forum, including (i) at least a portion of the
`
`infringements alleged herein; or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`individuals in Texas and in this district.
`
`7.
`
`Specifically, Apple intends to and does business in Texas, directly or through
`
`intermediaries and offers its products or services, including those accused herein of infringement,
`
`to customers and potential customers located in Texas, including in the Western District of Texas.
`
`8.
`
`Apple maintains a regular and established place of business in this District,
`
`including at 2901 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Austin, Texas 78746. Apple may be served with
`
`process through its registered agent for service in Texas: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryant
`
`Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`9.
`
`Since 2010, Apple has maintained an engineering team in Austin that designs chips
`
`that “go into all the devices [Apple] sell[s].” See The Statesman, Apple dives deeper into Austin’s
`
`talent pool, Sept. 7, 2016, available at https://www.statesman.com/news/20160907/apple-dives-
`
`deeper-into-austins-talent-pool (last accessed Dec. 29, 2020).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`10.
`
`In 2018, Apple had 6,200 employees in Austin, which was the largest population
`
`of Apple employees outside of its headquarters in Cupertino, California. See Apple, Inc., Apple
`
`to build new campus in Austin and add jobs across the US, Dec. 13, 2018, available at
`
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/12/apple-to-build-new-campus-in-austin-and-add-jobs-
`
`across-the-us/ (last accessed Dec. 29, 2020).
`
`11.
`
`As of 2019, Apple had approximately 7,000 employees in Austin. It has also
`
`broken ground on its new $1 billion, 3-million square-foot campus, which will have the capacity
`
`to house up to 15,000 employees. See Apple, Inc., Apple expands in Austin, Nov. 20, 2019,
`
`available at https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/ (last accessed
`
`Dec. 29, 2020).
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`12.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-11 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`13.
`
`GTP was founded in 2013 by Dr. Timothy Pryor, the sole inventor of the five
`
`Asserted Patents. He currently resides in Toledo, Ohio. Dr. Pryor received a B.S. in Engineering
`
`Physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1962, where he was also a member of the Army Reserve
`
`Officer in Training (ROTC) program. Upon graduation, he was commissioned as a Second
`
`Lieutenant in the United States Army. Dr. Pryor continued his education, obtaining an M.S. in
`
`Physics from the University of Illinois (1964) and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`University of Windsor (1972).
`
`14.
`
`Dr. Pryor rose to the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army before his honorable
`
`discharge in 1967. Dr. Pryor served at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground and in Italy,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`commanding missile teams supporting the Italian armed forces on a NATO anti-aircraft missile
`
`site, charged with guarding nuclear warheads and providing technical assistance to NATO.
`
`15.
`
`Dr. Pryor is a named inventor on over 200 patents and patent applications. For the
`
`past four decades, he has been a pioneer in laser sensing technology, motion sensing technology,
`
`machine vision technology and camera-based interactive technology.
`
`16.
`
`Since the 1970’s, Dr. Pryor has founded and led three other operating companies:
`
`two small operating companies in the automotive parts inspection and robotics businesses, one
`
`company that developed new forms of vehicle instrument panel controls, and co-founded another
`
`company that utilized camera-based sensors for physical therapy. Dr. Pryor is responsible for a
`
`significant amount of the research and development for the technologies at these companies.
`
`17.
`
`The patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924 patent”), 7,933,431 (the
`
`“’431 patent”), 8,878,949 (the “’949 patent”), and 8,553,079 (the “’079 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”), are generally directed to innovations in using mobile phone cameras to assist
`
`a user to interact with their smartphone, including, for example, but not limited to unlocking their
`
`phone, taking and using photos or videos, and providing other functions.
`
`18.
`
`Dr. Pryor conceived of the inventions embodied in the Asserted Patents in the mid-
`
`to late-1990s, when he was working on a variety of different projects related to imaging and
`
`computer control. Dr. Pryor describes the process as a brainstorm that led to several breakthrough
`
`moments, ultimately resulting in the Asserted Patents.
`
`DISCUSSIONS WITH APPLE
`
`19.
`
`Dr. Pryor and his patents are well-known to Apple.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`20.
`
`Indeed, Apple has purchased patents and technologies from Dr. Pryor in the past
`
`including his “multi-touch” patent portfolio in 2010. Dr. Pryor later assisted Apple in asserting
`
`the multi-touch portfolio against HTC.
`
`21.
`
`After Dr. Pryor developed the technology embodied in the Asserted Patents, Dr.
`
`Pryor again approached Apple about acquiring or licensing rights to Asserted Patents.
`
`22.
`
`GTP initiated a licensing discussion with Apple in June 2016 providing Apple with
`
`the Asserted Patents and describing the patented technology.
`
`23.
`
`Apple responded to GTP in writing by letter dated December 5, 2016 and
`
`negotiations continued through March 27, 2017.
`
`24.
`
`As a result of the correspondence described above and other negotiations, Apple
`
`was aware of the details of the Asserted Patents and was aware that Apple needed a license to
`
`practice the inventions in the Asserted Patents.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, Apple did not take any steps to change their products or
`
`to inform its engineers and design team of the Asserted Patents to avoid infringing them.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`26.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-25 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`27.
`
`Apple infringed the asserted patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and
`
`importing its smartphones and tablets including, but not limited to, Apple’s iPhone models 5C, 5S,
`
`6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE (1st), 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus, X, XS, XS Max, XR, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max,
`
`SE (2nd), 12, 12 Mini, 12 Pro, and 12 Pro Max and Apple’s iPad models iPad Mini 3, Air 2, Mini
`
`4, Pro (1st, 12.9 in.), iPad Pro (1st, 9.7 in.), iPad (5th generation), iPad Pro (2nd, 10.5/12.9 in.), iPad
`
`(6th generation), iPad Pro (3rd, 11/12.9 in.), iPad Air (3rd generation), iPad Mini (5th generation),
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`iPad (7th generation), iPad Pro (4th, 11/12.9 in.), iPad (8th generation), and iPad Air (4th generation),
`
`(collectively the “Accused Products”).
`
`EXAMPLES OF APPLE’S MARKETING OF THE ACCUSED FEATURES
`
`28.
`
`The Accused Products have features including, but not limited to, at least the
`
`following: Face ID, QR Scanner, Smart HDR, tracking autofocus, picture face recognition, selfie
`
`focus, autofocus area, optical image stabilization, portrait mode, switch control, and Animojis (the
`
`“Features”).
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The Features drive the popularity and sales of the Accused Products.
`
`For example, Apple has marketed the Accused Products using Face ID to unlock
`
`the phone as a superior security feature, as described in the following screenshot from Apple’s
`
`website:1
`
`1 Apple Inc., About Face ID advanced technology, available at
`https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208108 (last accessed November 12, 2020).
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`31.
`
`Apple has marketed its Accused Products using Face ID to make payments through
`
`Apple Pay, as described in the following screenshot from Apple’s website:2
`
`2 Apple Inc., Use Face ID to make purchases, available at https://support.apple.com/en-
`us/HT208109#purchases (last accessed November 12, 2020).
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`32.
`
`Apple has marketed its Accused Products using functions in taking photos and
`
`videos, such as the Smart HDR feature in its front-facing camera, as described in the following
`
`screenshot from Apple’s website:3
`
`3 Apple, Apple 11, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215146/www.apple.com/iphone-11/ (last accessed
`November 12, 2020).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`33.
`
`Apple has marketed the Accused Products using convenience features, such as
`
`Attention Aware features, as described in the following screenshot from Apple’s website4:
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,194,924
`
`34.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-34 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`35.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’924 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’924 patent against
`
`4 Apple, About Attention Aware features on your iPhone X or iPad Pro, available at
`https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208245 (last accessed November 12, 2020).
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’924 patent on June 5, 2012. A copy of the ’924 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`36.
`
`The ’924 patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming or
`
`Other Devices.” The ’924 patent describes using a camera output such that the handheld device’s
`
`computer performs a control function on the device, such as acquiring or taking images, reading
`
`things, determining data, transmitting data, printing data, and actuating a vehicle or function.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`The claims of the ’924 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Apple has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 1 of the ’924 patent.
`
`39.
`
`Apple has infringed the ’924 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and
`
`importing the Accused Products.
`
`40.
`
`The Accused Products are handheld devices with a housing and a computer,
`
`including but not limited to one or more System-on-Chips.
`
`41.
`
`The Accused Products have at least one first camera oriented to view a user of the
`
`Accused Product. The first camera has an output when used.
`
`42.
`
`The Accused Products have at least one second camera oriented to view an object
`
`other than the user. The second camera has an output when used.
`
`43.
`
`The first and second cameras of the Accused Products have non-overlapping fields
`
`of view.
`
`44.
`
`The computer of the Accused Products is adapted to perform a control function,
`
`such as the control functions associated with the Features, based on an output of either the first
`
`camera or the second camera.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that compensates it for such 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.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’924 patent.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’924 patent.
`
`48.
`
`Apple had knowledge of the ’924 patent at least as early as June 2016, when GTP
`
`contacted Apple in an attempt to license the Asserted Patents.
`
`49.
`
`Apple has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’924 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’924 patent. Apple has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’924 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Apple took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’924 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’924 patent. Such
`
`steps by Apple included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Features in the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising
`
`and promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions
`
`that guide end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner.
`
`Apple performed these steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the
`
`’924 patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Apple was
`
`aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`’924 patent. Apple’s direct infringement of the ’924 patent was willful, intentional, deliberate, or
`
`in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,933,431
`
`50.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-49 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`51.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’431 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’431 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’431 patent on April 26, 2011. A copy of the ’431 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`52.
`
`The ’431 patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or
`
`Other Devices.” The ’431 patent describes a method for a user to control a handheld device using
`
`gestures that are observed by a sensor on the handheld device.
`
`53.
`
`Apple has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 7 of the ’431 patent. Apple has infringed the ’431 patent by making, using, selling, offering
`
`to sell, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`The claims of the ’431 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The Accused Products are handheld computers.
`
`The Accused Products have a housing.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more cameras associated with their housing.
`
`The one or more cameras obtain images of objects using reflected light from the objects.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`58.
`
`A computer, including but not limited to at least one System on Chip, resides within
`
`the housing of the Accused Products. The computer analyzes images obtained by the one or more
`
`images to determine information about a position or movement of the object.
`
`59.
`
`The Accused Products use information about the object to control a function of the
`
`Accused Products, such as the functions associated with the Features.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`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.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’431 Patent.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’431 patent.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Apple had knowledge of the ’431 patent at least as early as June 2016.
`
`Apple has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’431 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’431 patent. Apple has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’431 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Apple took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’431 patent, including, for example, Claim 7 of the ’431 patent. Such
`
`steps by Apple included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of
`
`the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions that guide end-users and
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Apple performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’431 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Apple was aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the ’431 patent. Apple’s direct
`
`and indirect infringement of the ’431 patent was willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious
`
`disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,878,949
`
`65.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-64 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`66.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’949 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’949 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’949 patent on November 4, 2014. A copy of the ’949 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`67.
`
`The ’949 Patent is titled “Camera Based Interaction and Instruction.” The ’949
`
`patent describes a device that allows a user to control the device using gestures registered by the
`
`front-facing camera and an electro-optical sensor.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`The claims of the ’949 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
` Apple has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 1 of the ’949 patent. Apple infringed the ’949 patent by making, using, selling, offering for
`
`sale, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`70.
`
`The Accused Products are portable devices.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`71.
`
`The Accused Products have a housing. The housing has a forward-facing portion
`
`that includes an electro-optical sensor that has a field of view and a digital camera.
`
`72.
`
`Within the housing is a processing unit including, but not limited to, at least one
`
`System on Chip. The processing unit is coupled to the electro-optical sensor.
`
`73.
`
`The processing unit in the Accused Products has been programmed to determine if
`
`a gesture has been performed in the electro-optical sensors field of view based on an output from
`
`the electro-optical sensor.
`
`74.
`
`The processing unit of the Accused Products controls the digital camera in response
`
`to the gesture performed. Such gestures are used by the Features.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`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.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’949 Patent.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’949 patent.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Apple had knowledge of the ’949 patent at least as early of June 2016.
`
`Apple has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’949 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’949 patent. Apple has induced end-users and other third-
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’949 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Apple took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`one or more claims of the ’949 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’949 patent. Such
`
`steps by Apple included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of
`
`the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions that guide end-users and
`
`other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Apple performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’949 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Apple was aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the ’949 patent. Apple’s direct
`
`and indirect infringement of the ’949 patent was willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious
`
`disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,553,079
`
`80.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-79 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`81.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’079 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’079 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’079 patent on October 8, 2013. A copy of the ’079 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`82.
`
`The ’079 patent is titled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications.”
`
`The ’079 patent describes methods and apparatuses related to determining gestures illuminated by
`
`a light source of a computer by using a camera housed in the computer.
`
`83.
`
`The claims of the ’079 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`84.
`
`Apple has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least
`
`Claim 11 of the ’079 patent. Apple has infringed the ’079 patent by making, using, selling, offering
`
`for sale, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`The Accused Products are computer apparatuses.
`
`The Accused Products contain a light source that will illuminate a human body part
`
`within a work volume.
`
`87.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more cameras. The one or more cameras have
`
`a fixed relation to the light source. The one or more cameras of the Accused Products are oriented
`
`to observe gestures performed by a human body part.
`
`88.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more processors including, but not limited to,
`
`one or more System on Chips, that have been programmed to determine a gesture performed based
`
`on output from the one or more cameras.
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`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.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’079 patent.
`
`91.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’079 patent.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Apple had knowledge of the ’079 patent at least as early as June 2016.
`
`Apple has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’079 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’079 patent. Apple has induced end-users and other third-
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 20
`
`parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’079 patent by using
`
`the Accused Products. Apple took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with
`
`others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes
`
`one or more claims of the ’079 patent, including, for example, Claim 11 of the ’079 patent. Such
`
`steps by Apple included, among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-
`
`parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of
`
`the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions that guide end-users and
`
`other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Apple performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’079 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Apple was aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the ’079 patent. Apple’s
`
`inducement is ongoing.
`
`94.
`
`Apple’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’079 patent was willful, intentional,
`
`deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`GTP requests that the Court find in its favor and against Apple, and that the Court grant
`
`GTP the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patents have been infringed,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Apple or all others acting in concert
`
`therewith;
`
`b.
`
`Judgment that Apple accounts for and pays to GTP all damages to and costs
`
`incurred by GTP because of Apple’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 20
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Apple’s infringements be found willful, and that the Court award
`
`treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`d.
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Apple’s
`
`infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`e.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award GTP its reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`f.
`
`All other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Dated: February 4, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`Jonathan L. Hardt
`Texas State Bar No. 24039906
`Chad Ennis
`Texas State Bar No. 24045834
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`327 Congress Ave., Suite 490
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`jhardt@wsltrial.com
`cennis@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00121-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 20
`
`Pennsylvania State Bar No. 308996
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 512-543-1373
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Gesture Technology
`Partners, LLC
`
`20
`
`