Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:413
`
`
`
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`6005 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5726
`Phone: (213) 622-3003 / Fax: (213) 622-3053
`E-Mail: wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Phone: (248) 358-4400 / Fax: (248) 358-3351
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`Consolidated Case No.:
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`
`[Hon. George H. Wu]
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`v.
`
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC.,
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE
`COMMUNICATION CO.,
`LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:414
`
`
`
`1
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Ancora”), for its Complaint
`
`2
`
`against TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and
`
`3
`
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively “TCL”) herein,
`
`4
`
`states as follows.
`
`5
`
`2.
`
`Ancora further notes that the same claims exist in case No. 2:20-cv-
`
`6
`
`01252. As noted in the filing of Docket No. 22 in the 8:19-cv-02192 case, the parties
`
`7
`
`believe these cases should be consolidated.
`
`I.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and having a place of business at
`
`23977 S.E. 10th Street, Sammamish, Washington 98075.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology
`
`Co., Ltd. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the People’s
`
`Republic of China, with a principal place of business at 7F, Block F4, TCL
`
`Communication Technology Building, TCL International E-city, Zhong Shan Yuan
`
`Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, P.R. China.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.
`
`Ltd. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the People’s
`
`Republic of China, with a principal place of business at No. 86 Hechang Qi Lu Xi,
`
`Zhongkai Gaoxin District, Huizhou City, Guandong Province, P.R. China.
`
`6.
`
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 25 Edelman, Suite 200, Irvine,
`
`California 92618.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`1
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:415
`
`
`
`1
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, TCL is licensed to make, use, and sell
`
`2
`
`Alcatel-branded mobile devices in the United States.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`http://www.tctusa.com/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://us.alcatelmobile.com/about-us/
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, TCL is licensed to make, use, and sell
`
`Blackberry-branded mobile devices in the United States.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:416
`
`
`
`http://www.tctusa.com/
`
`
`
`
`
`https://blackberrymobile.com/us/about-us/
`
`9.
`
`The Defendants identified in paragraphs 4-6 above are an interrelated
`
`group of companies which together comprise a manufacturer and seller of Android
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:417
`
`
`
`1
`
`devices in the United States, including Android mobile devices that are sold under the
`
`2
`
`Alcatel and Blackberry brands.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`10. 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).
`
`11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to due
`
`process and/or the California Long Arm Statute and additional based on admission by
`
`way of the Declaratory Judgment Action and the parties’ stipulation contained in
`
`Docket No. 22.
`
`12. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c),
`
`and 1400(b) because (i) Defendants have done and continue to do business in this
`
`district; (ii) Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in this district, including using the claimed process in this district; and
`
`(iii) Defendants are foreign entities.
`
`13. Venue is proper as to Defendants based on the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Action and on agreement/stipulation and also because they are organized under the
`
`laws of the People’s Republic of China. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) provides that “a
`
`defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district, and
`
`the joinder of such a defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the action
`
`may be brought with respect to other defendants.”
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`4
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:418
`
`
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`14. On June 25, 2002, U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”) entitled
`
`“Method Of Restricting Software Operation Within A License Limitation” was duly
`
`and legally issued. (See Exhibit A, U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941.) A reexamination
`
`certificate also issued to the ’941 Patent on June 1, 2010 where the patentability of all
`
`claims was confirmed by the United States Patent Office. (Exhibit B, Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination Certificate Issued Under 35 U.S.C. § 307.)
`
`15. The ’941 patent has been involved in litigation against Microsoft
`
`Corporation, Dell Incorporated, Hewlett Packard Incorporated, and Toshiba America
`
`Information Systems. (See 2009-cv-00270, Western District of Washington).
`
`16. The ’941 patent has also been involved in litigation against Apple
`
`Incorporated. (See 2015-cv-03659, Northern District of California).
`
`17. The ’941 patent is currently involved in litigation against HTC America,
`
`Inc. and HTC Corporation. (See 2016-cv-01919, Western District of Washington).
`
`18. The ’941 patent is currently involved in litigation against Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (See 2019-cv-00385,
`
`Western District of Texas).
`
`19.
`
` The ’941 patent is currently involved in litigation against LG Electronics
`
`USA, Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (See 2019-cv-00384, Western District of Texas).
`
`20. The ’941 patent was involved in a Covered Business Method proceeding
`
`before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (See PTAB-CBM2017-00054). The
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied institution of the petition filed by HTC and
`
`found the ’941 patent recites a “technological improvement to problems arising in
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:419
`
`
`
`1
`
`prior art software and hardware methods of restricting an unauthorized software
`
`2
`
`program’s operation.” (See PTAB-CBM2017-00054, Paper No. 7 at pg. 9).
`
`3
`
`21. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit further issued an order
`
`4
`
`on November 16, 2018 regarding the validity of the ‘941 patent. (See CAFC 18-1404,
`
`5
`
`Dkt. # 39.) In this appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held:
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`[T]he claimed invention moves a software-verification structure to a
`
`BIOS location not previously used for this computer-security purpose
`
`and alters how the function is performed (in that the BIOS memory used
`
`for verification now interacts with distinct computer memory to perform
`
`a software-verification function), yielding a tangible technological
`
`benefit (by making the claimed system less susceptible to hacking).
`
`12
`
`CAFC 18-1404, Dkt. # 39, pg. 13.
`
`13
`
`22. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit further issued an order
`
`14
`
`on March 3, 2014 regarding claim construction and invalidity of the ’941 Patent. (See
`
`15
`
`CAFC 13-1378, Dkt. # 57).
`
`23. Ancora is the owner of all right, title and interest in the ’941 patent.
`
`IV. COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`24. Ancora realleges the preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`25. Claim 1 of the ’941 patent recites “a method of restricting software
`
`operation within a license for use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method
`
`comprising the steps of: [1] selecting a program residing in the volatile memory, [2]
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`6
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:420
`
`
`
`1
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory
`
`2
`
`of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data that includes at least one
`
`3
`
`license record, [3] verifying the program using at least the verification structure from
`
`4
`
`the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and [4] acting on the program
`
`5
`
`according to the verification.”
`
`6
`
`26. As explained in detail below, TCL directly infringed the ’941 patent in
`
`7
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, prior to the expiration of the ’941 patent, using
`
`8
`
`within the United States, and without authorization, the method recited in at least
`
`9
`
`Claim 1 of the ’941 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`10
`
`27. TCL designs at least the following smartphones to use the method recited
`
`11
`
`in Claim 1:
`
` Alcatel 3c/33x/3v/3L; Alcatel 1c/1x/1/1t7/1T10; Alcatel
`
`12
`
`A3/A3XL/A7XL/A7/A2XL/A3A; Alcatel A5; Alcatel IDOL 4/4S/5; Alcatel POP
`
`13
`
`4/4S/4PLUS; Alcatel PIXI 4(4)/4(5)/4(6); Blackberry KeyONE; and Blackberry Key2
`
`14
`
`(collectively “Smartphones”).
`
`15
`
`28. Upon information and belief, TCL began selling Alcatel Smartphones
`
`16
`
`between 2016 - 2018.
`
`17
`
`29. Upon information and belief, TCL began selling at least the Blackberry
`
`18
`
`KeyONE Smartphone in 2017.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`7
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:421
`
`
`
`https://blackberrymobile.com/press-room/
`
`30. Upon information and belief, TCL began selling at least the Blackberry
`
`Key2 Smartphone in 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`https://blackberrymobile.com/press-room/
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:422
`
`
`
`1
`
`31. The Smartphones include operating system software that is transmitted
`
`2
`
`by TCL or received under TCL’s direction using over-the-air (“OTA”) servers and
`
`3
`
`hardware (“the OTA Products”) that cause the Smartphones to perform the method of
`
`4
`
`claim 1 prior
`
`to
`
`the expiration of
`
`the
`
`‘941 Patent.
`
`
`
`(See e.g.,
`
`5
`
`https://tinyurl.com/uwetfeo.)
`
`6
`
`32. The following comparison between the limitations of Claim 1 of the ‘941
`
`7
`
`patent and TCL’s Over-the-Air update process (the “Accused Process”) used to update
`
`8
`
`TCL Smartphones establishes TCL’s infringement of the ‘941 patent. In addition, on
`
`9
`
`Ancora served its Preliminary Infringement Contentions on April 1, 2020 and
`
`10
`
`incorporates those infringement contentions herein.
`
`“A method of restricting software operation within a license for
`
`use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory
`
`area of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area;”
`
`33. The Accused Process is a method of restricting software operation within
`
`a license because, if the “Verified Boot” aspect of the Accused Process fails, the OTA
`
`update will not complete and the updated software will not execute.
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/security/verifiedboot
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`9
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:423
`
`
`
`1
`
`34.
`
`If the operating system update image is not cryptographically signed with
`
`2
`
`the expected cryptographic keys, the update process TCL uses will reject the update:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/sign_builds
`
`35. Each Smartphone used with the Accused Process includes a computer
`
`having a non-volatile memory area of a BIOS (also referred to as Unified Extensible
`
`Firmware Interface (UEFI)) in the form of ROM or Flash memory (also described as
`
`“RAM disk”) and volatile memory in the form of RAM memory. The BIOS included
`
`within each Smartphone comprises data that is maintained when the power is removed
`
`and contains the set of essential startup operations that run when a computer is turned
`
`on, which tests hardware, starts the operating system, and supports the transfer of data
`
`among hardware devices of the computer.
`
`“the method comprising the steps of: selecting a program
`
`residing in the volatile memory,”
`
`36. The Accused Process loads at least a portion of the updated operating
`
`system program image into the Smartphone’s RAM (volatile memory) and selects the
`
`program for execution.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`10
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:424
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/nonab
`
`
`“using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable,
`
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure
`
`accommodating data that includes at least one license record,”
`
`37. The Accused Process uses an agent to set up a verification structure in
`
`the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS of the Smartphones. For example,
`
`TCL implements an OTA Install program or subroutine that provides to the
`
`Smartphones an OTA update containing a verification structure. The OTA Install
`
`program or subroutine also stores a verification structure within a partition (e.g., the
`
`“cache” or “A/B” partitions) of the erasable, non-volatile memory of the Smartphone
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`BIOS.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:425
`
`
`
`1
`
`38. The verification structure includes data accommodating at least one
`
`2
`
`license record. Examples of such a license record TCL uses in the Accused Process
`
`3
`
`include a cryptographic signature or key:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/sign_builds
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/security/verifiedboot/verified-boot.
`
`“verifying the program using at least the verification structure
`
`from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and”
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`12
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:426
`
`
`
`1
`
`39. TCL uses the Accused Process to confirm whether the operating system
`
`2
`
`update is licensed using at least the verification structure from the erasable, non-
`
`3
`
`volatile memory of the Smartphone BIOS. For instance, once the verification
`
`4
`
`structure has been set up in the BIOS, TCL uses the Accused Process to reboot into
`
`5
`
`recovery mode, load the OTA update into its volatile memory (e.g., RAM), and use
`
`6
`
`the at least one license record from the BIOS to verify the OTA update (e.g., Step 5
`
`7
`
`below):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/nonab
`
`“acting on the program according to the verification.”
`
`40. The Accused Process acts on the program (the operating system update)
`
`according to the verification. If the OTA update is verified, the Accused Process will
`
`load and execute the update (e.g., Steps 6 and 7 below):
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`13
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:427
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/nonab
`
`41.
`
`If the verification fails, however, the update is rejected:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/sign_builds
`
`42. TCL uses and controls the use of the Accused Process to perform OTA
`
`software updates on the Smartphones, practicing each limitation of Claim 1 as
`
`described above. TCL directly infringed Claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent by using the
`
`Accused Process with Smartphones by itself.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:428
`
`
`
`1
`
`43. Once TCL has set up the verification structure by transmitting to a device
`
`2
`
`an OTA update, the Accused Process is configured to automatically perform each of
`
`3
`
`the remaining Claim 1 steps.
`
`4
`
`44.
`
`In addition to direct infringement by TCL, Ancora alternatively alleges
`
`5
`
`that TCL jointly infringes the ‘941 Patent with Smartphone owners in the United
`
`6
`
`States being responsible as a single entity as set forth below.
`
`7
`
`45.
`
` TCL conditions participation in the Accused Process and the receipt of
`
`8
`
`the benefit of a software update on the performance of each of the above steps. For
`
`9
`
`instance, TCL conditions participation by customers in using the Accused Process in
`
`10
`
`order to gain access to new or upgraded Android operating systems.
`
`11
`
`46. TCL takes steps to ensure that the Accused Process cannot install an OTA
`
`12
`
`update except by performing each of the above described steps.
`
`13
`
`47. TCL emphasizes the benefits associated with updating the software using
`
`14
`
`the Accused Process. For instance, TCL emphasizes that buying TCL Smartphones
`
`15
`
`(e.g., Blackberry Key2) with the Android OS customers are “getting the most secure
`
`16
`
`Android smartphone experience possible. (https://blackberrymobile.com/us/press-
`
`17
`
`room/.) And part of the experience includes “timely security updates” and “at least
`
`18
`
`one major OS update.” Id.
`
`19
`
`48. TCL controlled the manner of the performance of the Accused Process.
`
`20
`
`As set forth above, TCL configured each Android Product such that, upon receiving
`
`21
`
`an OTA update, it would automatically perform each remaining step of the Accused
`
`22
`
`Process. For example, using the Accused Process TCL may require immediate
`
`23
`
`installation
`
`of
`
`the OTA
`
`updates
`
`onto
`
`the
`
`TCL
`
`Smartphones.
`
`24
`
`(https://source.android.com/devices/tech/admin/ota-updates.) Or using the Accused
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`15
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:429
`
`
`
`1
`
`Process, TCL may allow the customer to postpone installation of the OTA update for
`
`2
`
`a specified period.
`
`3
`
`49. TCL controlled the timing of the performance of the Accused Process by
`
`4
`
`determining when to utilize the Accused Process to set up a verification structure in
`
`5
`
`the Smartphones.
`
`6
`
`50. TCL had the right and ability to stop or limit infringement by not using
`
`7
`
`the Accused Process but failed to do so.
`
`8
`
`51. TCL’s infringement has caused damage to Ancora, and Ancora is entitled
`
`9
`
`to recover from TCL those damages Ancora has sustained as a result of TCL’s
`
`10
`
`infringement.
`
`V. DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
`
`A. Declaring that TCL has infringed United States Patent No. 6,411,941 in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`B. Awarding damages to Ancora arising out of this infringement, including
`
`enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and prejudgment and post-judgment
`
`interest, in an amount according to proof;
`
`C. Awarding such other costs and relief the Court deems just and proper,
`
`including any relief that the Court may deem appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`16
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 44 Filed 04/17/20 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:430
`
`
`
`VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Ancora respectfully demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable of right
`
`by a jury in the above-captioned action.
`
`
`
`Date: April 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
` /s/ John P. Rondini
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`P: (248) 358-4400 /F: (248) 358-3351
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`6005 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5726
`Phone: (213) 622-3003
`Fax: (213) 622-3053
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`