Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 1 of 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC., AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-61
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”) file
`
`this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), and allege as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`For more than four decades, Ericsson has pioneered the development of the modern
`
`cellular network. Ericsson develops and sells infrastructure equipment that makes up the backbone
`
`of modern networks; that is, the base stations and cell tower equipment that mobile phones
`
`communicate with. Major mobile network operators all over the world buy equipment and/or
`
`services from Ericsson. Ericsson manages networks that serve more than one billion subscribers
`
`globally, and Ericsson’s equipment is found in more than one hundred and eighty countries.
`
`2.
`
`Ericsson is widely viewed as one of the leading innovators in the field of cellular
`
`communications. Due to the work of more than twenty-six thousand Ericsson research and
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 2 of 23
`
`development employees, Ericsson’s inventions are a valuable part of the fundamental technology
`
`used in phones and cellular networks worldwide, providing improved performance and new
`
`features for the benefit of consumers. Worldwide, more than forty percent of all mobile phone
`
`calls are made through Ericsson networks. Ericsson employs approximately ten thousand people
`
`in North America, including a substantial number of employees in the United States.
`
`3.
`
`Ericsson has a long history of innovative technical contributions, including the
`
`Asserted Patents. In addition, some of Ericsson’s other accomplishments include:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`1878: Ericsson sold its first telephone;
`1977: Ericsson introduced the world’s first digital telephone exchange;
`1981: Ericsson introduced its first mobile telephone system, NMT;
`1991: Ericsson launched 2G mobile phones and the world’s first 2G
`network;
`1994: Ericsson invented Bluetooth wireless technology;
`2001: Ericsson made the world’s first 3G wireless call for Vodafone UK;
`2009: Ericsson started the world’s first 4G network and made the first 4G
`call;
`2010: Ericsson equipment serving over two billion mobile subscribers;
`2013: Ericsson serving 500+ cellular operators in 180+ countries;
`2014: European Patent Office selected Ericsson inventors as finalists for
`the European Inventor Award, based on contributions to 4G/LTE;
`2015: Former Ericsson engineer Jaap Haartsen was inducted into the
`National Inventors Hall of Fame for Bluetooth Wireless Technology;
`2018: Ericsson had submitted over 10,000 technical contributions to 5G
`standards; and
`2021 Ericsson USA 5G “Smart Factory” recognized as “Global
`Lighthouse” by the World Economic Forum.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of its extensive research and development efforts, Ericsson has been
`
`awarded more than fifty-seven thousand patents worldwide.
`
`5.
`
`Apple is the largest smartphone manufacturer in the United States and has in the
`
`past taken a license to Ericsson’s patents. Apple first licensed Ericsson’s patents in 2008 when it
`
`released the first iPhone. In 2015, Apple and Ericsson executed another global cross-license,
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 3 of 23
`
`covering both parties’ patents related to the 2G, 3G, and 4G cellular standards. Based on the
`
`expiration of those licenses, Apple is no longer licensed to Ericsson’s patents.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Ericsson Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the Kingdom of Sweden with its principal place of business at Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista,
`
`164 83, Stockholm, Sweden.
`
`8.
`
`Apple is a California corporation having a principal place of business located at 1
`
`Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014, and regular and established places of business at 12535
`
`Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas and 5501 West Parmer Lane, Austin, Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because
`
`Defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business
`
`in this District as set forth below.
`
`11.
`
`Apple maintains an office in Austin, Texas at “West Parmer Lane and Riata Vista
`
`Circle, where most of its 7,000 Austin employees work.” (See Apple checks in with 192-room
`
`hotel
`
`for billion-dollar Northwest Austin campus, CultureMap Austin
`
`(available at
`
`https://austin.culturemap.com/news/city-life/05-20-20-apple-adds-surprising-element-to-1-
`
`billion-campus-in-northwest-austin/.)
`
` This “1.1 million-square-foot campus, which was
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 4 of 23
`
`completed in 2016, features seven office buildings on 38 acres” and “represents Apple’s largest
`
`hub outside its $5 billion headquarters in Cupertino, California.” (Id.) In addition, Apple has
`
`stated that it has “has broken ground on its new $1 billion, 3-million-square-foot campus” near its
`
`existing campus. (See https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/.)
`
`This new campus “will initially house 5,000 employees, with the capacity to grow to 15,000, and
`
`is expected to open in 2022.” (Id.) All told, “Apple is poised to become Austin’s largest private
`
`employer in the not-too-distant future.” (See Apple checks in with 192-room hotel for billion-
`
`dollar Northwest Austin campus, CultureMap Austin.)
`
`12.
`
`In addition to its Parmer Lane and Riata Vista campuses, Apple owns and operates
`
`at least five other physical places of business in this District. These include three retail spaces in
`
`Austin, one retail space in San Antonio, and one retail space in El Paso. In such retail spaces,
`
`Apple markets, sells, and services revenue directly from the products accused of infringement in
`
`this case.
`
`13.
`
`In addition to the approximately 7,000 current employees in Austin, Apple’s
`
`Careers at Apple website currently lists over 600 jobs available in the Austin area, including 191
`
`jobs related to its iPhone products. (See https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/search?location=austin-
`
`AST.)
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. Apple has continuous and
`
`systematic business contacts with the State of Texas. In addition, Apple conducts its business
`
`extensively throughout Texas and derives substantial revenue in Texas, by shipping, distributing,
`
`offering for sale, selling, and advertising (including the provision of an interactive web page) its
`
`products and/or services in the State of Texas and the Western District of Texas. Apple has
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 5 of 23
`
`purposefully and voluntarily placed in the stream of commerce one or more products and/or
`
`services that practice the Asserted Patents (as set forth in ¶¶ 15-22 below) with the intention and
`
`expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers in the Western District of Texas.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`15.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,430 (“the ’430 Patent”), entitled “Method of and Inductor
`
`Layout for Reduced VCO Coupling,” was duly and legally issued to inventor Thomas Mattsson
`
`on December 19, 2006. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ʼ430
`
`patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`16.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,957,770 (“the ’770 Patent”), entitled “Mobile Communication
`
`Terminal for Providing Tactile Interface,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Hyunjun An,
`
`Ju-Nam Kim, and Min Hak Lee on June 7, 2011. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right,
`
`title, and interest in the ʼ770 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`17.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,472,999 (“the ’999 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for
`
`Enabling Dual Standby State in a Wireless Communication System,” was duly and legally issued
`
`to inventor Xuejuan Zhang on June 25, 2013. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title,
`
`and interest in the ʼ999 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`18.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,792,454 (“the ’454 Patent”), entitled “Secure and Seamless
`
`WAN-LAN Roaming,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Kenichi Taniuchi, Tao Zhang,
`
`Prathima Agrawal, Ashutosh Dutta, Sunil Madhani, Shinichi Baba, Kensaku Fujimoto, Yasuhiro
`
`Katsube, Toshikazu Kodama, and Yoshihiro Ohba on July 29, 2014. Ericsson owns by assignment
`
`the entire right, title, and interest in the ʼ454 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future
`
` 5
`
`
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 6 of 23
`
`19.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,273 (“the ’273 Patent”), entitled “Transformer Filter
`
`Arrangement,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Stefan Andersson, Fenghao Mu, and Johan
`
`Wernehag on November 29, 2016. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest
`
`in the ʼ273 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`20.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,705,400 (“the ’400 Patent”), entitled “Reconfigurable Output
`
`Stage,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Philippe Sirito-Olivier, Patrizia Milazzo, and
`
`Angelo Nagari on July 11, 2017. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest
`
`in the ʼ400 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`21.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,853,621 (“the ’621 Patent”), entitled “Transformer Filter
`
`Arrangement,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Stefan Andersson, Fenghao Mu, and Johan
`
`Wernehag on December 26, 2017. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest
`
`in the ʼ621 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`22.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,794 (“the ’794 Patent”), entitled “Inter-Band Handover of
`
`the Same Physical Frequency,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Peter Alriksson and Maria
`
`Ulander on December 29, 2020. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`the ʼ794 Patent and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
`
`Count I: Claim for Patent Infringement of the ʼ430 Patent
`
`23.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-22 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`24.
`
`Apple has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
`
`infringement of the ’430 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
`
`United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the United
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 7 of 23
`
`States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’430 Patent including, but
`
`not limited to, mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches, including iPhones, iPads,
`
`Apple Watches, and Apple TV (referred to herein as the “’430 Accused Products”).
`
`25.
`
`For example, the ’430 Accused Products infringe at least claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 14,
`
`and 16-18 of the ʼ430 Patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies
`
`or distributes within the United States these devices, which are covered by or made by a process
`
`covered by the claims of the ʼ430 Patent, and thus directly infringes the ʼ430 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the ʼ430 Patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as resellers and end-user customers in this District and
`
`throughout the United States. For example, direct infringement is the result of activities performed
`
`by manufacturers, resellers, or end-users of the ’430 Accused Products, who perform each step of
`
`the claimed invention as directed by Apple. Apple received actual notice of the ʼ430 Patent at least
`
`as early as the filing of Ericsson’s complaint against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas (2:15-
`
`cv-288), in which Ericsson also asserted the ’430 Patent; and the filing of this Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`Apple affirmatively acts to sell the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products
`
`to be manufactured, and provide directions, instructions, schematics, diagrams, or designs to its
`
`manufacturers, resellers, or end-users to make or use the Accused Products in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the ʼ430 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of the ’430 Accused
`
`Products, Apple performed the acts that constitute induced infringement with knowledge or willful
`
`blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`28.
`
`Apple also indirectly infringes the ʼ430 Patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers and end-users, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 8 of 23
`
`this District and throughout the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
`
`performed by manufacturers, resellers and end-users of the ’430 Accused Products.
`
`29.
`
`Apple’s affirmative acts of selling the ’430 Accused Products and causing the ’430
`
`Accused Products to be manufactured and sold contribute to Apple’s manufacturers, resellers and
`
`end-users making or using the ’430 Accused Products in a normal and customary way that
`
`infringes the ʼ430 Patent. The ’430 Accused Products constitute the material part of Ericsson’s
`
`patented invention, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use to infringe the ʼ430 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the ’430 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 Ericsson pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`31.
`
`By way of example only, Apple’s iPhone 13 infringes claim 1 of the ’430 Patent as
`
`set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Count II: Claim for Patent Infringement of the ʼ770 Patent
`
`32.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-31 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`33.
`
`Apple has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
`
`infringement of the ’770 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
`
`United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the United
`
`States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’770 Patent including, but
`
`not limited to, mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches, including iPhones, iPads,
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 9 of 23
`
`Apple Watches, and Apple TV (referred to throughout the remainder of this Complaint as “the
`
`Accused Products”).
`
`34.
`
`For example, the Accused Products infringe at least claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 of
`
`the ’770 Patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies or distributes
`
`within the United States these devices, which are covered by or made by a process covered by the
`
`claims of the ’770 Patent, and thus directly infringes the ’770 Patent.
`
`35.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the ’770 Patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as resellers and end-user customers in this District and
`
`throughout the United States. For example, direct infringement is the result of activities performed
`
`by manufacturers, resellers, or end-users of the Accused Products, who perform each step of the
`
`claimed invention as directed by Apple. Apple received actual notice of the ’770 Patent at least as
`
`early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Apple affirmatively acts to sell the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products
`
`to be manufactured, and provide directions, instructions, schematics, diagrams, or designs to its
`
`manufacturers, resellers, or end-users to make or use the Accused Products in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the ’770 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of the Accused Products,
`
`Apple performed the acts that constitute induced infringement with knowledge or willful blindness
`
`that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`37.
`
`Apple also indirectly infringes the ’770 Patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers and end-users, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in
`
`this District and throughout the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
`
`performed by manufacturers, resellers and end-users of the Accused Products.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 10 of 23
`
`38.
`
`Apple’s affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products and causing the Accused
`
`Products to be manufactured and sold contribute to Apple’s manufacturers, resellers, and end-users
`
`making or using the Accused Products in a normal and customary way that infringes the ’770
`
`Patent. The Accused Products constitute the material part of Ericsson’s patented invention, have
`
`no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use to infringe the ’770 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the ’770 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 Ericsson pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`40.
`
`By way of example only, Apple’s iPhone 13 infringes claim 1 of the ’770 Patent as
`
`set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit B.
`
`Count III: Claim for Patent Infringement of the ʼ999 Patent
`
`41.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`42.
`
`Apple has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
`
`infringement of the ’999 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
`
`United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the United
`
`States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’999 Patent including, but
`
`not limited to, mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches, including the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 11 of 23
`
`43.
`
`For example, the Accused Products infringe at least claims 11-17 of the ’999 Patent.
`
`Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies or distributes within the United
`
`States these devices, which are covered by or made by a process covered by the claims of the ’999
`
`Patent, and thus directly infringes the ’999 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the ’999 Patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as resellers and end-user customers in this District and
`
`throughout the United States. For example, direct infringement is the result of activities performed
`
`by manufacturers, resellers, or end-users of the Accused Products, who perform each step of the
`
`claimed invention as directed by Apple. Apple received actual notice of the ’999 Patent at least as
`
`early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Apple affirmatively acts to sell the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products
`
`to be manufactured, and provide directions, instructions, schematics, diagrams, or designs to its
`
`manufacturers, resellers, or end-users to make or use the Accused Products in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the ’999 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of the Accused Products,
`
`Apple performed the acts that constitute induced infringement with knowledge or willful blindness
`
`that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`46.
`
`Apple also indirectly infringes the ’999 Patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers and end-users, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in
`
`this District and throughout the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
`
`performed by manufacturers, resellers and end-users of the Accused Products.
`
`47.
`
`Apple’s affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products and causing the Accused
`
`Products to be manufactured and sold contribute to Apple’s manufacturers, resellers and end-users
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 12 of 23
`
`making or using the Accused Products in a normal and customary way that infringes the ’999
`
`Patent. The Accused Products constitute the material part of Ericsson’s patented invention, have
`
`no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use to infringe the ’999 Patent.
`
`48.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the ’999 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 Ericsson pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`49.
`
`By way of example only, Apple’s iPhone 13 infringes claim 11 of the ’999 Patent
`
`as set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit C.
`
`Count IV: Claim for Patent Infringement of the ʼ454 Patent
`
`50.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-49 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`51.
`
`Apple has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
`
`infringement of the ’454 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
`
`United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the United
`
`States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’454 Patent including, but
`
`not limited to, mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches, including the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`52.
`
`For example, the Accused Products infringe at least claims 1-2 and 4-9 of the ’454
`
`Patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies or distributes within the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 13 of 23
`
`United States these devices, which are covered by or made by a process covered by the claims of
`
`the ’454 Patent, and thus directly infringes the ’454 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the ’454 Patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as resellers and end-user customers in this District and
`
`throughout the United States. For example, direct infringement is the result of activities performed
`
`by manufacturers, resellers, or end-users of the Accused Products, who perform each step of the
`
`claimed invention as directed by Apple. Apple received actual notice of the ’454 Patent at least as
`
`early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`Apple affirmatively acts to sell the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products
`
`to be manufactured, and provide directions, instructions, schematics, diagrams, or designs to its
`
`manufacturers, resellers, or end-users to make or use the Accused Products in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the ’454 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of the Accused Products,
`
`Apple performed the acts that constitute induced infringement with knowledge or willful blindness
`
`that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`55.
`
`Apple also indirectly infringes the ’454 Patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers and end-users, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in
`
`this District and throughout the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
`
`performed by manufacturers, resellers and end-users of the Accused Products.
`
`56.
`
`Apple’s affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products and causing the Accused
`
`Products to be manufactured and sold contribute to Apple’s manufacturers, resellers and end-users
`
`making or using the Accused Products in a normal and customary way that infringes the ’454
`
`Patent. The Accused Products constitute the material part of Ericsson’s patented invention, have
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 14 of 23
`
`no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use to infringe the ’454 Patent.
`
`57.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the ’454 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 Ericsson pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`58.
`
`By way of example only, Apple’s iPhone 13 infringes claim 1 of the ’454 Patent as
`
`set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit D.
`
`Count V: Claim for Patent Infringement of the ʼ273 Patent
`
`59.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-58 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`60.
`
`Apple has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
`
`infringement of the ’273 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
`
`United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the United
`
`States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’273 Patent including, but
`
`not limited to, mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches, including the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`61.
`
`For example, the Accused Products infringe at least claims 1-3, 13, and 18 of the
`
`’273 Patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies or distributes
`
`within the United States these devices, which are covered by or made by a process covered by the
`
`claims of the ’273 Patent, and thus directly infringes the ’273 Patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 15 of 23
`
`62.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the ’273 Patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as resellers and end-user customers in this District and
`
`throughout the United States. For example, direct infringement is the result of activities performed
`
`by manufacturers, resellers, or end-users of the Accused Products, who perform each step of the
`
`claimed invention as directed by Apple. Apple received actual notice of the ’273 Patent at least as
`
`early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`63.
`
`Apple affirmatively acts to sell the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products
`
`to be manufactured, and provide directions, instructions, schematics, diagrams, or designs to its
`
`manufacturers, resellers, or end-users to make or use the Accused Products in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the ’273 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of the Accused Products,
`
`Apple performed the acts that constitute induced infringement with knowledge or willful blindness
`
`that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`64.
`
`Apple also indirectly infringes the ’273 Patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers and end-users, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in
`
`this District and throughout the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
`
`performed by manufacturers, resellers and end-users of the Accused Products.
`
`65.
`
`Apple’s affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products and causing the Accused
`
`Products to be manufactured and sold contribute to Apple’s manufacturers, resellers and end-users
`
`making or using the Accused Products in a normal and customary way that infringes the ’273
`
`Patent. The Accused Products constitute the material part of Ericsson’s patented invention, have
`
`no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use to infringe the ’273 Patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 16 of 23
`
`66.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the ’273 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 Ericsson pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 284-285.
`
`67.
`
`By way of example only, Apple’s iPhone 13 infringes claim 1 of the ’273 Patent as
`
`set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit E.
`
`Count VI: Claim for Patent Infringement of the ʼ400 Patent
`
`68.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-67 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`69.
`
`Apple has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
`
`infringement of the ’400 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
`
`United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the United
`
`States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’400 Patent including, but
`
`not limited to, mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches, including the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`70.
`
`For example, the Accused Products infringe at least claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 13-15
`
`of the ’400 Patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies or distributes
`
`within the United States these devices, which are covered by or made by a process covered by the
`
`claims of the ’400 Patent, and thus directly infringes the ’400 Patent.
`
`71.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the ’400 Patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as resellers and end-user customers in this District and
`
`throughout the United States. For example, direct infringement is the result of activities performed
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 17 of 23
`
`by manufacturers, resellers, or end-users of the Accused Products, who perform each step of the
`
`claimed invention as directed by Apple. Apple received actual notice of the ’400 Patent at least as
`
`early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`72.
`
`Apple affirmatively acts to sell the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products
`
`to be manufactured, and provide directions, instructions, schematics, diagrams, or designs to its
`
`manufacturers, resellers, or end-users to make or use the Accused Products in a manner that
`
`directly infringes the ’400 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of the Accused Products,
`
`Apple performed the acts that constitute induced infringement with knowledge or willful blindness
`
`that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`73.
`
`Apple also indirectly infringes the ’400 Patent by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers and end-users, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in
`
`this District and throughout the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
`
`performed by manufacturers, resellers and end-users of the Accused Products.
`
`74.
`
`Apple’s affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products and causing the Accused
`
`Products to be manufactured and sold contribute to Apple’s manufacturers, resellers and end-users
`
`making or using the Accused Products in a normal and customary way that infringes the ’400
`
`Patent. The Accused Products constitute the material part of Ericsson’s patented invention, have
`
`no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use to infringe the ’400 Patent.
`
`75.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the ’400 Patent has been and continues to be deliberate and
`
`willful, and, therefore, this is an exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages for
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00061-ADA Document 1 Filed 01/17/22 Page 18 of 23
`
`up to three times the actual damages awarded and attorney’s fees to Ericsson pursuant to 35 U.S.