Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:13-cv-1059
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Solocron Media, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Verizon Communications Inc., Cellco
`Partnership d.b.a. Verizon Wireless,
`AT&T Inc.,
`AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Sprint Corporation,
`Sprint Communications Company L.P.,
`Sprint Solutions Inc., and
`T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Solocron Media, LLC (“Solocron” or “plaintiff”) hereby alleges for its Complaint for
`
`patent infringement against defendants Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership
`
`d.b.a. Verizon Wireless (collectively, “Verizon”); AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`(collectively, “AT&T”); Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Sprint Nextel Corporation),
`
`Sprint Communications Company L.P., and Sprint Solutions Inc. (collectively, “Sprint”); and T-
`
`Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) on personal knowledge as to its own actions and on information
`
`and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
`
`THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a patent infringement action to end Verizon’s AT&T’s, Sprint’s, and T-
`
`Mobile’s (collectively, “Defendants’”) unauthorized and infringing manufacture, use, sale,
`
`1
`
`AT&T - Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 2
`
`offering for sale, and/or importation of products and methods incorporating Plaintiff Solocron’s
`
`patented inventions.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Solocron holds all substantial rights and interest in the Patents-in-Suit
`
`described below, including the exclusive right to sue Defendants for infringement and recover
`
`damages.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import infringing products and
`
`provide infringing services in violation of the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiff Solocron seeks injunctive
`
`relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to infringe Solocron’s patent rights. Plaintiff
`
`Solocron further seeks monetary damages and prejudgment interest for defendants’ past
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`This is an exceptional case, and Solocron requests damages, enhanced damages,
`
`attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Solocron is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`625 Chase Drive, Suite 200, Tyler, Texas 75701.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Verizon Communications Inc. is a
`
`corporation existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of
`
`business at 140 West Street, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Verizon Communications Inc. is
`
`registered to do business in Texas, is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and can be
`
`served through its registered agent for service, C T Corporation System, located at 350 North St.
`
`Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Cellco Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon Wireless
`
`is a general partnership existing and organized under the laws of Delaware, is doing business as
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 3
`
`Verizon Wireless, and has its principal place of business at One Verizon Way, Basking Ridge,
`
`New Jersey 07920. Cellco Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon Wireless is doing business in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas and can be served through its registered agent for service, the Corporation Trust
`
`Company, located at Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, New Castle, DE
`
`19801.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, defendant AT&T Inc. is a corporation existing and
`
`organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Texas at 208 S.
`
`Akard St., Dallas, TX 75202. AT&T Inc. is registered to do business in Texas, is doing business
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas, and can be served through its registered agent for service, C T
`
`Corporation System, located at 350 North St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, defendant AT&T Mobility LLC is a corporation
`
`existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business at 5565
`
`Glenridge Connector, Atlanta, GA 30349. AT&T Mobility LLC is registered to do business in
`
`Texas, is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and can be served through its registered
`
`agent for service, C T Corporation System, located at 350 North St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas,
`
`Texas 75201.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Sprint Corporation was formerly known as
`
`Sprint Nextel Corporation, is a corporation existing and organized under the laws of Delaware,
`
`and has its principal place of business at 6200 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251. Sprint
`
`Corporation is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and can be served through its
`
`registered agent for service, the Corporation Service Company, located at 2711 Centerville Rd.,
`
`Ste. 400 Wilmington, New Castle, DE 19808.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 4
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Sprint Communications Company L.P. is a
`
`limited partnership existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place
`
`of business at 8140 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114. Sprint Communications Company
`
`L.P. is registered to do business in Texas, is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and
`
`can be served through its registered agent for service, The Prentice-Hall Corporation System,
`
`located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Sprint Solutions Inc. is a corporation
`
`existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business at 701
`
`Brazos St., Ste. 1050, Austin, Texas 78701. Sprint Solutions Inc. is registered to do business in
`
`Texas, is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and can be served through its registered
`
`agent for service, the Corporation Service Company, located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620,
`
`Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a corporation
`
`existing and organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business at
`
`12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is registered to do business in
`
`Texas, is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and can be served through its registered
`
`agent for service, the Corporation Service Company, located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620,
`
`Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14.
`
`This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 5
`
`16.
`
`Founded in 2011, Plaintiff Solocron is registered to do business in Texas and is
`
`doing business in the Eastern District of Texas. Solocron’s flagship product, Loopdoodle, which
`
`is one embodiment of the inventions in the Patents-in-Suit, was substantially developed in Tyler,
`
`Texas, and is currently offered for sale in Tyler, Texas. Solocron continues to conduct research
`
`and development activities in Tyler, Texas. Solocron stores documents, including documents
`
`pertaining to this litigation, the Patents-in-Suit, corporate formation, email servers, and
`
`Loopdoodle in Tyler, Texas. Solocron currently employs five (5) employees in its Tyler, Texas
`
`office, including its general manager, Joshua Ebright, who is a full-time Tyler resident.
`
`17.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over defendant Verizon
`
`Communications Inc. Verizon Communications Inc. is registered to do business in Texas, and
`
`has identified CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234
`
`as its registered agent. Verizon Communications Inc. has substantial contacts with the forum as
`
`a consequence of conducting substantial business in the State of Texas and within this district.
`
`Verizon Communications Inc. is the parent corporation of Cellco Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon
`
`Wireless, a wholly-owned subsidiary, which is also doing business in Texas. On information
`
`and belief, Verizon Communications Inc., individually or through joint and concerted action
`
`through its operating subsidiaries: maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district;
`
`transacts business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the retail locations
`
`maintained within Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and
`
`services utilizing the claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas,
`
`including within this district; and provides products and services, including mobile device
`
`products and services, directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As detailed
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 6
`
`below, Verizon Communications Inc. has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`18.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over defendant Cellco
`
`Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon Wireless. Cellco Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon Wireless has substantial
`
`contacts with the forum as a consequence of conducting substantial business in the State of
`
`Texas and within this district. Cellco Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon Wireless is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc. On information and belief, Cellco Partnerships d.b.a.
`
`Verizon Wireless, individually or through joint and concerted action with its parent corporation,
`
`Verizon Communications Inc.: maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district;
`
`transacts business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the retail store locations
`
`maintained within Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and
`
`services utilizing the claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas,
`
`including within this district; and provides products and services, including mobile device
`
`products and services, directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As further
`
`detailed below, Cellco Partnerships d.b.a. Verizon Wireless has committed and continues to
`
`commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`19.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over defendant AT&T
`
`Inc. AT&T Inc. is registered to do business in Texas, and has identified CT Corporation System,
`
`350 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234 as its registered agent. AT&T Inc. has
`
`substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence of conducting substantial business in the
`
`State of Texas and within this district. AT&T Inc. is the parent corporation of AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary, which is also registered to do business in Texas. On
`
`information and belief, AT&T Inc., individually or through joint and concerted action through its
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 7
`
`operating subsidiaries: maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district; transacts
`
`business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the retail locations maintained within
`
`Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and services utilizing the
`
`claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas, including within this
`
`district; and provides products and services, including mobile device products and services,
`
`directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As detailed below, AT&T Inc. has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`20.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC. AT&T Mobility LLC is registered to do business in Texas, and has identified CT
`
`Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234 as its registered
`
`agent. AT&T Mobility LLC has substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence of
`
`conducting substantial business in the State of Texas and within this district. AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. On information and belief, AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC, individually or through joint and concerted action with its parent corporation, AT&T Inc.:
`
`maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district; transacts business in Texas and/or
`
`in this district, including through the retail store locations maintained within Texas and this
`
`district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and services utilizing the claimed
`
`systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas, including within this district; and
`
`provides products and services, including mobile device products and services, directly to
`
`consumers in Texas, including within this district. As further detailed below, AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and this
`
`district.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 8
`
`21.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over defendant Sprint
`
`Corporation, formerly known as Sprint Nextel Corporation. Sprint Corporation has substantial
`
`contacts with the forum as a consequence of conducting substantial business in the State of
`
`Texas and within this district. Sprint Corporation is the parent corporation of Defendants Sprint
`
`Communications Company L.P. and Sprint Solutions Inc., subsidiaries doing and registered to do
`
`business in Texas. On information and belief, Sprint Corporation, individually or through joint
`
`and concerted action through its operating subsidiaries: maintains retail store locations within
`
`Texas and this district; transacts business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the
`
`retail locations maintained within Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its
`
`products and services utilizing the claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing
`
`in Texas, including within this district; and provides products and services, including mobile
`
`device products and services, directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As
`
`detailed below, Sprint Corporation has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`22.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal
`
`jurisdiction over Sprint
`
`Communications Company L.P. Sprint Communications Company L.P. is registered to do
`
`business in Texas, and has identified The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, located at 211 E. 7th
`
`Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701 as its registered agent. Sprint Communications Company
`
`L.P. has substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence of conducting substantial business
`
`in the State of Texas and within this district. Sprint Communications Company L.P. is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Sprint Corporation. On information and belief, Sprint Communications
`
`Company L.P., individually or through joint and concerted action with its parent corporation,
`
`Sprint Corporation: maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district; transacts
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 9
`
`business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the retail store locations maintained
`
`within Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and services
`
`utilizing the claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas, including
`
`within this district; and provides products and services, including mobile device products and
`
`services, directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As further detailed below,
`
`Sprint Communications Company L.P. has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`23.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Sprint Solutions Inc.
`
`Sprint Solutions Inc. is registered to do business in Texas, and has identified the Corporation
`
`Service Company, located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701 as its registered
`
`agent. Sprint Solutions Inc. has substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence of
`
`conducting substantial business in the State of Texas and within this district. Sprint Solutions
`
`Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint Corporation. On information and belief, Sprint
`
`Solutions Inc., individually or through joint and concerted action with its parent corporation,
`
`Sprint Corporation: maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district; transacts
`
`business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the retail store locations maintained
`
`within Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and services
`
`utilizing the claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas, including
`
`within this district; and provides products and services, including mobile device products and
`
`services, directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As further detailed below,
`
`Sprint Solutions Inc. has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in
`
`Texas and this district.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 10
`
`24.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over defendant T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is registered to do business in Texas, and has identified the
`
`Corporation Service Company, located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701 as its
`
`registered agent. T-Mobile USA, Inc. has substantial contacts with the forum as a consequence
`
`of conducting substantial business in the State of Texas and within this district. On information
`
`and belief, T-Mobile USA, Inc., individually or through joint and concerted action through its
`
`operating subsidiaries: maintains retail store locations within Texas and this district; transacts
`
`business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the retail locations maintained within
`
`Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and services utilizing the
`
`claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas, including within this
`
`district; and provides products and services, including mobile device products and services,
`
`directly to consumers in Texas, including within this district. As detailed below, T-Mobile USA,
`
`Inc. has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`25.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(b)
`
`because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims against Defendants occurred and
`
`are occurring in this district, and/or because Defendants have regular and established practices of
`
`business in this district and have committed and are committing acts of infringement in this
`
`district.
`
`JOINDER
`
`26.
`
`Joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because questions of fact common to all
`
`Defendants will arise in the action. As detailed below, Solocron alleges patent infringement by
`
`Defendants in connection with (among other things) their making, using, selling, and/or offering
`
`to sell systems, and their practice of methods, for delivery of Mobile Messaging Service
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 11
`
`(“MMS”) messages to their mobile phone subscribers. The exchange of information between an
`
`MMS client device (such as a mobile phone) and one or more Mobile Messaging Service Centers
`
`(“MMSCs”) for the purpose of determining whether, based on the capabilities of the client
`
`device, to modify the content of an MMS message so that it is appropriate to the capabilities of
`
`the client device, is defined in large part by common standards. These standards include, e.g.,
`
`MMS 1.2 Conformance Document OMA-MMS-CONF-v1_2-20050301-A, and MMS 1.3
`
`Conformance Document OMA-TS-MMS-CONF-V1_3-20110913-A.
`
` The operation of
`
`Defendants’ hardware and software in accordance with these standards constitutes important
`
`evidence of infringement of Solocron’s Patents, and presents significant questions of fact
`
`common to all Defendants.
`
`27.
`
`Joinder is further proper because some of Defendants’ infringement arises out of
`
`the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making,
`
`using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product
`
`or process, for example in the case in which a customer of one Defendant transmits an MMS
`
`message to the customer of another Defendant, such that the messaging systems of one
`
`Defendant receives such a message from the messaging systems of another Defendant.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`28.
`
`On December 17, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,496,692 B1 (“the ’692 Patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E.
`
`Shanahan. A copy of the ’692 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 12
`
`29.
`
`The ’692 Patent is directed to methods for programming customized information
`
`such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable device including
`
`devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`30.
`
`On August 14, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,257,395 B2 (“the ’395 Patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E.
`
`Shanahan. A copy of the ’395 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`31.
`
`The ’395 Patent is directed to systems for programming customized information
`
`such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable device including
`
`devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`32.
`
`On November 13, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,295,864 B2 (“the ’864 Patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E.
`
`Shanahan. A copy of the ’864 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C.
`
`33.
`
`The ’864 Patent is directed to systems and methods for programming customized
`
`information such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable
`
`device including devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`34.
`
`On January 15, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,319,866 B2 (“the ’866 Patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E.
`
`Shanahan. A copy of the ’866 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 13
`
`35.
`
`The ’866 Patent is directed to systems for programming customized information
`
`such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable device including
`
`devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`36.
`
`On June 22, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,742,759 B2 (“the ’759 Patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatuses for
`
`Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E. Shanahan. A
`
`copy of the ’759 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E.
`
`37.
`
`The ’759 Patent is directed to systems and methods for programming customized
`
`information such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable
`
`device including devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`38.
`
`On August 21, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,249,572 B2 (“the ’572 Patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E.
`
`Shanahan. A copy of the ’572 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F.
`
`39.
`
`The ’572 Patent is directed to methods for programming customized information
`
`such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable device including
`
`devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`40.
`
`On November 26, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,594,651 B2 (“the ’651 Patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatuses for Programming User-Defined Information Into Electronic Devices,” to Michael E.
`
`Shanahan. A copy of the ’651 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit G.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 14
`
`41.
`
`The ’651 Patent is directed to systems and methods for programming customized
`
`information such as user-selected audio, video, or Internet information into a programmable
`
`device including devices such as wireless telephones and personal digital assistants.
`
`42.
`
`Solocron is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest to and in
`
`the ’692, ’395, ’864, ’866, ’759, ’572, and ’651 Patents (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`BACKGROUND ON THE ACCUSED TECHNOLOGIES: RINGTONES
`
`43.
`
`Defendants provide to their customers, including customers in this district,
`
`ringtone products and services including ringtone stores. Defendants’ ringtone stores provide the
`
`ability for Defendants’ customers to connect over a network, such as from a personal computer
`
`or mobile phone over the Internet and/or a cellular network, to an interactive store displaying a
`
`variety of audio files that Defendants’ customers can browse through and purchase from. These
`
`audio files can be received by Defendants’ customers, and programmed into their mobile phones,
`
`for use as audio notifications of incoming telephone calls.
`
`44.
`
`For example, Verizon provides ringtone stores including but not limited to the
`
`Verizon Media Store.
`
`45.
`
`For example, AT&T provides ringtone stores including but not limited to the
`
`AppCenter and “Shop Music” ringtone stores.
`
`46.
`
`For example, Sprint provides ringtone stores including but not limited to the
`
`“Sprint Music Plus” store.
`
`47.
`
`For example, T-Mobile provides ringtone stores including but not limited to the
`
`“Megatones,” “HiFi Ringtones,” and “Callertunes” stores.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 15
`
`BACKGROUND ON THE ACCUSED TECHNOLOGIES:
`
`MOBILE MESSAGING SERVICE (“MMS”)
`
`48.
`
`Defendants also provide to their customers, including customers in this district,
`
`Mobile Messaging Service (or “MMS”) services. Defendants’ MMS services allow Defendants’
`
`customers to, for example, send text, picture, video, and/or audio messages from the customer’s
`
`mobile device to another mobile device provided by the same or a different Defendant.
`
`Defendants’ MMS services also include, for example, the ability to modify the content of an
`
`MMS message so that it is appropriate to the capabilities of, for example, a customer’s MMS
`
`client device (such as a mobile phone) using one or more Mobile Messaging Service Centers
`
`(“MMSCs”) and associated hardware and software that exchange information with the MMS
`
`client device.
`
`COUNT I AGAINST VERIZON:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,496,692
`
`49.
`
`Solocron incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 48 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, Verizon has and continues to infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’692 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by performing in the United States and without authority every step of the patented
`
`invention by using products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems that embody the
`
`patented invention, including (but not limited to), for example, mobile device products and
`
`services such as ringtone products and services, and hardware and software components of
`
`servers and other network infrastructure that enable and/or make use of these products and
`
`services.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 16
`
`51.
`
`Solocron has suffered damages as a result of Verizon’s infringement of the ’692
`
`Patent. In addition, Solocron will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this
`
`Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Verizon, its agents, servants, employees,
`
`representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’692 Patent.
`
`COUNT II AGAINST VERIZON:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,257,395
`
`52.
`
`Solocron incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 48 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`53.
`
`On information and belief, Verizon has and continues to infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’395 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States and without
`
`authority products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems that embody the patented
`
`invention, including (but not limited to), for example, mobile device products and services such
`
`as ringtone products and services, and servers and other network infrastructure that enable and/or
`
`make use of these products and services.
`
`54.
`
`Solocron has suffered damages as a result of Verizon’s infringement of the ’395
`
`Patent. In addition, Solocron will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this
`
`Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Verizon, its agents, servants, employees,
`
`representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’395 Patent.
`
`COUNT III AGAINST VERIZON:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,295,864
`
`55.
`
`Solocron incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 48 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-01059-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 17 of 39 PageID #: 17
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, Verizon has and continues to infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’864 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States and without
`
`authority, and by performing in the United States and without authority every step of the
`
`patented invention by using, products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems that
`
`embody the patented invention, including (but not limited to), for example, mobile device
`
`products and services such as ringtone products and services and websites, servers, and other
`
`network infrastructure that enable and/or make use of these products and services.
`
`57.
`
`Solocron has suffered damages as a result of Verizon’s infringement of the ’864
`
`Patent. In addition, Solocron will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this
`
`Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Verizon, its agents, servants, employees,
`
`representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’864 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV AGAINST VERIZON:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,319,866
`
`58.
`
`Solocron incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 48 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`59.
`
`On information and belief, Verizon has and continues to infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’866 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States and without
`
`authority p