`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-528
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`BILLJCO, LLC
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo” or “Plaintiff”), by its undersigned counsel, for its
`Complaint against defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), states as follows:
`I.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §271, based on Apple’s unauthorized and willful infringing
`
`manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of methods and products
`
`incorporating BillJCo’s patented inventions.
`
`2.
`
` BillJCo is owner of all right, title, and interest in and to multiple United States
`
`patents and patent applications including United States Patent Nos. 8,566,839 (the ‘839 Patent);
`
`8,639,267 (the ‘267 Patent); 8,761,804 (the ‘804 Patent); 9,088,868 (the ‘868 Patent); 10,292,011
`
`(the ‘011 Patent); 10,477,994 (the ‘994 Patent) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`3.
`
`Apple manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or distributes
`
`products and services which directly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. The Patents-in-Suit represent
`
`38547294.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 2 of 24
`
`BillJCo.’s significant investment into the Bluetooth Low Energy (“BLE”) beacon technology
`
`space.
`
`II.
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 1704 Katherine Court, Flower Mound, TX 75022. Mr. Bill Johnson
`
`(“Mr. Johnson”) is the sole member of BillJCo and is the inventor of the Patents-in-Suit and
`
`related patents in the patent portfolio.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Apple, Inc. is a California corporation, with several offices and retail
`
`locations located in Austin, Texas including regular and established places of business at 12545
`
`Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas 78727, 2901 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Austin, Texas 78746,
`
`and at 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas 78758.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Apple is in the process of establishing a second
`
`headquarters to be located at 6900 W. Parmer Lane, Austin, TX 78729.
`
`7.
`
`Apple can be served with process through its registered agent CT Corporation
`
`System at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 7520.
`
`III.
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement, which arises under the Patent Laws of
`
`the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 282, 284, and 285. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`9.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple because it has committed acts
`
`giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district. Apple also regularly does
`
`business or solicits business in this District and in Texas, engages in other persistent course of
`
`conduct and derives substantial revenue from products and/or services provided in this District
`
`38547294.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 3 of 24
`
`and in Texas, and has purposefully established substantial, systematic and continuous contacts
`
`with this District and should reasonably expect to be sued in a court in this District.
`
`10.
`
`For example, Apple has a regular and established place of business in the State of
`
`Texas and in this District, including an office located at 12545 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas
`
`78727, and is in the process of building out its second worldwide headquarters at 6900 W.
`
`Parmer Lane, Austin, TX 78729, including construction of a hotel. Apple also operates retail
`
`stores in this District, conducts business with customers residing in this District, and offers
`
`support service to customers in this District and Texas.
`
`11.
`
`Apple has committed acts of patent infringement in this District and elsewhere in
`
`Texas.
`
`12.
`
`Apple continues to grow its presence in this District, further cementing its ties to
`
`this District. Apple operates a website and various advertising campaigns that solicit sales of the
`
`infringing products by consumers in the District and in Texas. Apple has entered into
`
`partnerships with numerous resellers and distributors to sell and offer for sale the Accused
`
`Products to consumers in this District, both online and in stores, and offers support services to
`
`customers in this District.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Apple operates brick-and-mortar retail establishments
`
`(“Apple Stores”) at Barton Creek Square, Austin, Texas and at Apple Domain Northside, Austin,
`
`Texas.
`
`14.
`
`Each of these Apple Store locations offer for sale and sell Apple products,
`
`including Apple iPhone products and Apple iPad products, which are configured and conformed
`
`to practice and implement the iBeacon protocol and specification.
`
`38547294.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 4 of 24
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, the Best Buy store at 4627 S. Jack Kultgen Expy.,
`
`Waco, TX 76706 also sells Apple products including Apple iPhone products and Apple iPad
`
`products.
`
`16.
`
`Apple is registered to do business in Texas and maintains an agent authorized to
`
`receive service of process within Texas. Given these contacts, the Court’s exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Apple will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and
`
`1400(b) because Apple has an established place of business in this District, including at 12545
`
`Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas 78727, has committed acts within this District giving rise to
`
`this action and resulting in the derivation of substantial revenue from goods and services
`
`provided to customers in Texas, and Apple continues to conduct business in this District,
`
`including one or more acts of selling, using, importing, and/or offering for sale infringing goods
`
`and/or performing support service to Apple’s customers in this District.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is also convenient as BillJCo is a registered Texas Limited Liability
`
`Company located in Texas. Similarly, BillJCo member and inventor of the Patents-in-Suit, Mr.
`
`Johnson, lives and resides in Texas. As such, various evidence and sources of proof relating to
`
`the Patents-in-Suit and this case also are located in and reside in Texas.
`
`IV.
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`BillJCo’s Technology and Patents-in-Suit
`
`19.
`
`Beacon technology generally relates to a class of BLE hardware transmitters that
`
`broadcast, among other things, their identifier to nearby electronic devices where different
`
`information can be received, processed, analyzed, and ultimately presented to a user to, for
`
`example, enhance a user’s or customer’s experience.
`
`38547294.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 5 of 24
`
`20.
`
`The BillJCo patent portfolio includes thirty-three (33) issued and enforceable
`
`United States patents (“the Patent Portfolio”) directed to the beacon technology ecosystem which
`
`have resulted from the innovation, ingenuity, and work of BillJCo member and inventor William
`
`J. Johnson. The Patent Portfolio claims an earliest priority date of March 14, 2008.
`
`21.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are part of the Patent Portfolio and relate to specific and
`
`particularized inventions for, and associated with, this beacon technology and the related
`
`protocols and specifications which facilitate and enable aspects of the beacon technology
`
`ecosystem including devices capable of implementing beacon standards and specifications,
`
`manufacturers of beacon transmitting devices, application developers, and beacon deployers. In
`
`particular, the Patents-in-Suit also teach and disclose – among other things – systems and
`
`methods for broadcasting and beaconing related identifiers, applications, and location
`
`information for use within the beacon ecosystem.
`
`22.
`
`On October 22, 2013, the ‘839 Patent entitled “System and Method for
`
`Automated Content Presentation Objects” was duly and legally issued by the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy of the ‘839 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`23.
`
`On January 28, 2014, the ‘267 Patent entitled “System and Method for Location
`
`Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed Locational Applications” was duly and legally
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy of the ‘267
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`24.
`
`On June 24, 2014, the ‘804 Patent entitled “System and Method for Location
`
`Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed Locational Applications” was duly and legally
`
`38547294.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 6 of 24
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy of the ‘804
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`25.
`
`On July 21, 2015, the ‘868 Patent entitled “Location Based Exchange
`
`Permissions” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`true and accurate copy of the ‘868 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`26.
`
`On May 14, 2019, the ‘011 Patent entitled “System and Method for Location
`
`Based Exchange Network” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy of the ‘011 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`27.
`
`On November 19, 2019, the ‘994 Patent entitled “System and Method for
`
`Location Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed Locational Applications” was duly
`
`and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and accurate copy
`
`of the ‘994 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are valid and enforceable.
`
`As of the priority date, the inventions as claimed in the Patents-in-Suit were
`
`novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine.
`
`30.
`
`BillJCo, LLC is the assignee of and owns all right, title, and interests in the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, including the right to receive a reasonable royalty, and recovery of any and all
`
`other damages for all past and future infringement thereof.
`
`Apple’s iBeacon Protocol
`In or around June 2013, Apple publicly announced its rollout of it IOS 7 and its
`
`31.
`
`BLE iBeacon initiative.
`
`32.
`
`This iBeacon initiative included the commercialization of an ecosystem including
`
`Apple’s iBeacon protocol for use by application developers, parties deploying devices with
`
`iBeacon technology and parties making devices with iBeacon technology.
`6
`
`38547294.1
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 7 of 24
`
`33.
`
`Central to this ecosystem is Apple’s iBeacon protocol is a technology standard for
`
`enabling location awareness for interaction of devices, such as Apple’s iPhones and other iOS
`
`devices, with beacon transmitters and various applications which can be used, for example, to
`
`determine a device’s physical location, track customers, or trigger location-based action on a
`
`device.
`
`34.
`
`Through its iBeacon protocol, Apple has standardized the technology data packet
`
`consisting of at least the following pieces of information of iBeacon prefix, universally unique
`
`identifier (UUID), Major, Minor, and Tx Power:
`
`
`Thus, to participate you must comply with Apple’s iBeacon protocol and
`
`35.
`
`specification.
`
`38547294.1
`
`Apple’s Infringing Instrumentalities
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 8 of 24
`
`36.
`
`Apple makes, imports, uses, offers for sale, and sells in the United States devices
`
`that conform to and implement the iBeacon protocol and infringe the Patents-in-Suit. This
`
`includes devices that operate in compliance with BLE implementing IOS 7 and higher such as:
`
`1) iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone
`
`SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, iPhone
`
`XS Max, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12, iPhone 12
`
`Pro, and iPhone 12 Pro Max and 2) iPad (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th generation), iPad 2, iPad
`
`Mini, iPad Mini 2, iPad Mini 3, iPad mini 4, iPad Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Air 2. Apple may also
`
`have infringed the Patents-in-Suit through other software and devices utilizing the same or
`
`reasonably similar functionality. (collectively the “Accused Infringing Instrumentalities”).
`
`37.
`
`The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities are also used to create a
`
`communications system where a device operates as a beacon that transmits a series of messages
`
`that include data fields arranged in accordance with the BLE protocol and another device
`
`receives such a message and is capable of receiving data, including location data, contained in
`
`the inquiry message.
`
`38.
`
`Apple has been aware that it infringes the Patents-in-Suit since at least June 5,
`
`2019 upon it receiving a letter from BillJCo regarding the Patents-in-Suit. Since obtaining
`
`knowledge of its infringing activities, Apple has failed to cease its infringing activities.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, Apple has been aware that it infringes the Patents-in-
`
`Suit since many of the Patents-in-Suit, as well as others patents in the Patent Portfolio, were cited
`
`during prosecution of Apple’s own patents. For example, the ‘267 Patent was cited by a patent
`
`examiner on September 3, 2014 during Apple’s prosecution of its U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/373,966 in which Mr. Johnson was also listed as the inventor.
`
`38547294.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 9 of 24
`
`40.
`
`Apple has infringed, and continues to infringe, claims of the Patents-In-Suit in the
`
`United States by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`41.
`
`Apple induces infringement by others of one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) in aiding, instructing, promoting, encouraging or otherwise
`
`acting with the intent to cause other parties, including customers, developers, and third-party
`
`manufacturers, to use its Accused Infringing Instrumentalities. Apple is aware of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, at least as of the filing and/or service of this lawsuit, and knows or should have known that
`
`the inducing acts described herein constitutes infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`42.
`
`Apple takes specific steps to actively induce others—such as, for example
`
`customers, application developers, and third-party manufacturers—to access, use, and develop
`
`programs and applications for the Accused Instrumentalities and intentionally instructs infringing
`
`use through training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides, such as
`
`those located at: https://developer.apple.com/ibeacon/;
`
`https://developer.apple.com/ibeacon/Getting-Started-with-iBeacon.pdf
`
`https://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/BluetoothDesignGuidelines.pdf;
`
`https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/Location
`
`AwarenessPG/RegionalMonitoring/RegionalMonitoring.html.
`
`43.
`
`Apple has also infringed, and continues to infringe the Patents-In-Suit by offering
`
`to commercially distribute, commercially distributing, or importing Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities which are used in practicing the processes, or using the systems of the Patents-
`
`In-Suit, and constitute a material part of the invention. Apple knows portions of the Accused
`
`Devices to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the Patents-in-
`
`38547294.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 10 of 24
`
`Suit, not a staple article, and not a commodity of commerce suitable for substantially
`
`noninfringing use. Apple is therefore liable for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit under 35
`
`U.S.C. §271(c).
`
`44.
`
`Apple undertook and continues its infringing actions despite that it knew and/or
`
`should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk that its activities
`
`infringed the Patents-in-Suit, which were duly issued by the USPTO, and are presumed valid.
`
`For example, since at least the filing of this action, Apple has been aware of the unjustifiably
`
`high risk that its actions constituted and continue to constitute infringement of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, and that the Patents-in-Suit are valid. On information and belief, Apple could not
`
`reasonably, subjectively believe that its actions do not constitute infringement of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, and it could not reasonably, subjectively believe that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid.
`
`Despite this knowledge and subjective belief, and the unjustifiably high risk that its actions
`
`constitute infringement, Apple has continued its infringing activities. As such. Apple willfully
`
`infringes the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘839 PATENT
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`BillJCo incorporates all previous paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘839 Patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘839 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`47.
`
`The ‘839 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-conventional
`
`and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and improved upon
`
`what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`38547294.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 11 of 24
`
`48.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit G),
`
`Apple, without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘839 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘839 Patent.
`
`Apple is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘839 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`49.
`
`Apple actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘839 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘839 Patent. Apple aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Apple knew of the ‘839 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘839 Patent, and Apple is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘839 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`50.
`
`Apple is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘839
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`namely the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, used to infringe at least one claim of the ‘839
`
`Patent. The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. Apple
`
`knew that the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities were especially made for use in an infringing
`
`manner prior to the filing of this lawsuit. For at least the reasons set forth above, Apple
`
`contributes to the infringement of the ‘839 Patent by others.
`
`51.
`
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 287 is determined to be applicable, its requirements
`
`have been satisfied with respect to the ’839 Patent.
`
`38547294.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 12 of 24
`
`52.
`
`BillJCo has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to BillJCo in an amount that compensates it for such infringement,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty and in an amount yet to be determined.
`
`BillJCo is also entitled to receive such other and further relief, as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`53.
`
`BillJCo is further informed, and on this basis alleges, that Apple’s infringement of
`
`the ‘839 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an
`
`exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for up to three times the actual
`
`damages awarded and attorney’s fees to BillJCo pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. As noted
`
`above, Apple has had knowledge of the ’839 Patent or at least was willfully blind to its
`
`infringement, as well as related patents and patent applications, and its infringement thereof, and
`
`yet has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for BillJCo patent rights. Thus, Apple’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful.
`
`54.
`
`Apple’s use of the ‘839 Patent is not licensed or authorized by BillJCo in any
`
`way. BillJCo has not licensed the ‘839 Patent to Apple.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘267 PATENT
`
`55.
`
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘267 Patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘267 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`56.
`
`The ‘267 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-conventional
`
`38547294.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 13 of 24
`
`and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and improved upon
`
`what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`57.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit H),
`
`Apple, without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘267 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘267 Patent.
`
`Apple is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘267 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`58.
`
`Apple actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘267 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘267 Patent. Apple aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Apple knew of the ‘267 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘267 Patent, and Apple is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘267 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`59.
`
`Apple is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘267
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`namely the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, used to infringe at least one claim of the ‘267
`
`Patent. The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. Apple
`
`knew that the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities were especially made for use in an infringing
`
`manner prior to the filing of this lawsuit. For at least the reasons set forth above, Apple
`
`contributes to the infringement of the ‘267 Patent by others.
`
`38547294.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 24
`
`60.
`
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 287 is determined to be applicable, its requirements
`
`have been satisfied with respect to the ‘267 Patent.
`
`61.
`
`BillJCo has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to BillJCo in an amount that compensates it for such infringement,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty and in an amount yet to be determined.
`
`BillJCo. is also entitled to receive such other and further relief, as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`62.
`
`BillJCo is further informed, and on this basis alleges, that Apple’s infringement of
`
`the ‘267 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an
`
`exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for up to three times the actual
`
`damages awarded and attorney’s fees to BillJCo pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. As noted
`
`above, Apple has had knowledge of the ‘267 Patent or at least was willfully blind to its
`
`infringement, as well as related patents and patent applications, and its infringement thereof, and
`
`yet has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for BillJCo patent rights. Thus, Apple’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful.
`
`63.
`
`Apple’s use of the ‘267 Patent is not licensed or authorized by BillJCo in any
`
`way. BillJCo has not licensed the ‘267 Patent to Apple.
`
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘804 PATENT
`
`64.
`
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘804 Patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘804 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`38547294.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 15 of 24
`
`65.
`
`The ‘804 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-conventional
`
`and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and improved upon
`
`what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`66.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit I),
`
`Apple, without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘804 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘804 Patent.
`
`Apple is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘804 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`67.
`
`Apple actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘804 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘804 Patent. Apple aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Apple knew of the ‘804 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘804 Patent, and Apple is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘804 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`68.
`
`Apple is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘804
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`namely the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, used to infringe at least one claim of the ‘804
`
`Patent. The Accused Infringing Instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. Apple
`
`knew that the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities were especially made for use in an infringing
`
`38547294.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 16 of 24
`
`manner prior to the filing of this lawsuit. For at least the reasons set forth above, Apple
`
`contributes to the infringement of the ‘804 Patent by others.
`
`69.
`
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 287 is determined to be applicable, its requirements
`
`have been satisfied with respect to the ‘804 Patent.
`
`70.
`
`BillJCo has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Apple alleged
`
`above. Thus, Apple is liable to BillJCo in an amount that compensates it for such infringement,
`
`which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty and in an amount yet to be determined.
`
`BillJCo. is also entitled to receive such other and further relief, as this Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`71.
`
`BillJCo is further informed, and on this basis alleges, that Apple’s infringement of
`
`the ‘804 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an
`
`exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for up to three times the actual
`
`damages awarded and attorney’s fees to BillJCo pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. As noted
`
`above, Apple has had knowledge of the ‘804 Patent or at least was willfully blind to its
`
`infringement, as well as related patents and patent applications, and its infringement thereof, and
`
`yet has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for BillJCo patent rights. Thus, Apple’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful.
`
`72.
`
`Apple’s use of the ‘804 Patent is not licensed or authorized by BillJCo in any
`
`way. BillJCo has not licensed the ‘804 Patent to Apple.
`
`COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘868 PATENT
`BillJCo owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ‘868 Patent,
`
`73.
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘868 Patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`16
`
`38547294.1
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 17 of 24
`
`74.
`
`The ‘868 Patent describes in technical detail each of the limitations of the claims,
`
`allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how the non-conventional
`
`and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from and improved upon
`
`what may have been conventional or generic in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`75.
`
`As set forth in the attached exemplary non-limiting Claim Chart (Exhibit J),
`
`Apple, without authorization or license from BillJCo, has been and is presently directly
`
`infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘868 Patent,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), including through making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`in the United States the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities, and/or importing into the United
`
`States, methods, services, systems, and products made in accordance with the ‘868 Patent.
`
`Apple is thus liable for direct infringement of the ‘868 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a).
`
`76.
`
`Apple actively induces infringement of at least one claim of the ‘868 Patent by
`
`selling the Accused Infringing Instrumentalities with instructions as to how to use the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities in a system or method such as recited in the ‘868 Patent. Apple aids,
`
`instructs, or otherwise acts with the intent to cause an end user to use the Accused Infringing
`
`Instrumentalities. Apple knew of the ‘868 Patent and knew that its use and sale of the Accused
`
`Infringing Instrumentalities infringe at least one claim of the ‘868 Patent, and Apple is thus liable
`
`for inducement of the ‘868 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
`
`77.
`
`Apple is also liable for contributory infringement of at least one claim of the ‘868
`
`Patent by providing, and by having knowingly provided, a material part of the instrumentalities,
`
`n