2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 1 of 137 Pg ID 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. and
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a
`CMS TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. __________________
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. AND ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.’S
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) and Aruba Networks, Inc.
`
`(“Aruba”) (collectively and each in its own right, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint
`
`against Defendant ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“ChriMar”),
`
`hereby demand a jury trial and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs each seek a declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement,
`
`invalidity, and unenforceability due to unclean hands, estoppel, waiver, and/or
`
`implied license of United States Patent Nos. 9,019,838 (the “‘838 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Central Piece of Network Equipment,” and 9,049,019 (the “‘019 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Network Equipment and Optional Tether,” pursuant to the Patent Laws of the
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`
`
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-1
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 2 of 137 Pg ID 2
`
`
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and such other relief as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`2.
`
`Aruba seeks a declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement,
`
`invalidity, and unenforceability due to unclean hands, estoppel, waiver, and/or
`
`implied license of United States Patent Nos. 7,457,250 (the “‘250 Patent”), entitled
`
`“System for Communicating with Electronic Equipment”; 8,155,012 (the “‘012
`
`Patent”), entitled “System and Method for Adapting a Piece of Terminal
`
`Equipment”; 8,902,760 (the “‘760 Patent”), entitled “Network System and
`
`Optional Tethers”; and 8,942,107 (the “‘107 Patent”), entitled “A Piece of Ethernet
`
`Terminal Equipment,” pursuant to the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 100 et seq., and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`3.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ‘838 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the ‘019 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`B. A true and correct copy of the ‘250 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ‘012 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘760 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ‘107 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs also bring an action for breach of contract by ChriMar for
`
`breach of the IEEE’s patent policy and bylaws that required ChriMar to disclose
`
`through a Letter of Assurance patents or patent applications that ChriMar believed
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`2
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-2
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 3 of 137 Pg ID 3
`
`
`
`were infringed by the practice of actual and/or proposed standards of the IEEE,
`
`such as ChriMar’s ‘838 and ‘019 Patent-related applications.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs also bring an action under Section 17200 et seq. of the
`
`California Business and Professions Code for ChriMar’s unfair business practices
`
`related to its conduct before the IEEE and its enforcement of the ‘838 Patent, the
`
`‘019 Patent, and related patents.
`
`6.
`
`Aruba also brings an action for breach of contract by ChriMar for
`
`breach of the IEEE’s patent policy and bylaws that required ChriMar to disclose
`
`through a Letter of Assurance patents or patent applications that ChriMar believed
`
`were infringed by the practice of actual and/or proposed standards of the IEEE,
`
`such as ChriMar’s ‘250, ‘012, ‘760, and ‘107 Patent-related applications.
`
`7.
`
`Aruba also brings an action under Section 17200 et seq. of the
`
`California Business and Professions Code for ChriMar’s unfair business practices
`
`related to its conduct before the IEEE and its enforcement of the ‘250 Patent, the
`
`‘012 Patent, the ‘760 Patent, the ‘107 Patent, and related patents.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Co. is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo
`
`Alto, California.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`3
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-3
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 4 of 137 Pg ID 4
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Aruba Networks, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1322 Crossman Avenue,
`
`Sunnyvale, California. Aruba was acquired by HP in 2015, in a transaction
`
`completed on May 19, 2015. Aruba is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of HP, but
`
`remains separately incorporated.
`
`10. On information and belief, Defendant ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a
`
`CMS Technologies is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`36528 Grand River Avenue, Suite A-1 in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to, and without
`
`limitation, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367; the Declaratory Judgment Act
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; and the patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`1 et seq.
`
`12. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
`
`asserted in this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state and federal
`
`claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts.
`
`13. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between ChriMar and
`
`Plaintiffs as to the noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘838
`
`and ‘019 Patents. In addition, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`ChriMar and Aruba as to the noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`4
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-4
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 5 of 137 Pg ID 5
`
`
`
`the ‘250, ‘012, ‘760, and ‘107 Patents. As further alleged below, ChriMar is and
`
`has been engaged in a campaign to license and enforce its patent portfolio against
`
`manufacturers and sellers of Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) networking products,
`
`including Plaintiffs. In connection with ChriMar’s licensing campaign targeting
`
`PoE products, HP is currently involved in litigation against ChriMar with respect
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250 (the “‘250 Patent”).1 This litigation involves PoE
`
`products implementing the IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.3at amendments to the
`
`IEEE 802.3 standard. HP has also brought declaratory judgment actions against
`
`ChriMar with respect to related U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 (the “‘012 Patent”)2 and
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,902,760 (the “‘760 Patent”) and 8,942,107 (the “‘107 Patent”)
`
`in this Court.3 The ‘838 Patent issued in April 2015, and the ‘019 Patent recently
`
`issued in June 2015. Plaintiffs maintain that the ‘838 and ‘019 Patents are invalid,
`
`unenforceable, and are not infringed by Plaintiffs’ PoE products capable of
`
`implementing the IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.3at amendments to the IEEE 802.3
`
`
`1
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-1300-JSW (N.D.
`Cal.) (“ChriMar v. Cisco”).
`2
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. ChriMar Systems, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-10292 (E.D.
`Mich.). That action is currently stayed pending resolution of the N.D. Cal.
`litigation.
`3
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. ChriMar Systems, Inc., No. 2: 15-cv-10814 (E.D.
`Mich.). That action is currently stayed pending resolution of the N.D. Cal.
`litigation.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`5
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-5
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 6 of 137 Pg ID 6
`
`
`
`standard.4 In addition, Aruba maintains that the ‘250, ‘012, ‘760, and ‘107 Patents
`
`are invalid, unenforceable, and are not infringed by Aruba’s PoE products capable
`
`of implementing the IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.3at amendments to the IEEE
`
`802.3 standard.
`
`14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over ChriMar at least because, on
`
`information and belief, ChriMar is a Michigan corporation having its principal
`
`place of business within the Eastern District of Michigan at 36528 Grand River
`
`Avenue, Suite A-1 in Farmington Hills, Michigan. ChriMar has made substantial
`
`business contacts in Michigan including product sales to Michigan entities, and
`
`ChriMar’s campaign to enforce and license its patent portfolio, including the ‘250,
`
`‘012, ‘760, ‘107, ‘838, and ‘019 Patents, has a substantial relationship to Michigan.
`
`ChriMar has availed itself of the laws of this district in connection with its current
`
`portfolio licensing efforts targeting PoE products, including by litigating patent
`
`infringement claims involving that portfolio in this district.
`
`15. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c) and
`
`§ 1400(b) at least because ChriMar is subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`
`4
`In ChriMar v. Cisco, HP has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that
`the ‘250 patent, parent to the ‘012, ’760, ‘107, ‘838, and ‘019 Patents, is invalid,
`unenforceable, and not infringed by HP’s PoE products, including products
`implementing the IEEE 802.3af and 802.3at standards.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`6
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-6
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 7 of 137 Pg ID 7
`
`
`
`District and is located within this District and because a substantial part of the
`
`events that give rise to the claims herein occurred in this district.
`
`A. CHRIMAR’S PATENTS
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`16. ChriMar’s patent portfolio includes the ‘838 Patent, the ‘019 Patent,
`
`the ‘107 Patent, the ‘760 Patent, the ‘250 Patent, the ‘012 Patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,650,622 (the “‘622 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 (the “‘260 Patent”).
`
`17. The ‘838 Patent, entitled “Central Piece of Network Equipment,”
`
`reports that it was filed on September 14, 2012, and issued on April 28, 2015. The
`
`‘838 Patent reports that it is a continuation of Application No. 13/370,918, now the
`
`‘107 Patent, which is a continuation of Application No. 12/239,001, filed on
`
`September 26, 2008, now the ‘012 Patent, which is a continuation of Application
`
`No. 10/668,708, filed on September 23, 2003, now the ‘250 Patent, which is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 09/370,430, filed on August 9, 1999, now the ‘622
`
`Patent, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed
`
`on April 8, 1999. The inventors named on the ‘838 Patent are John F. Austermann,
`
`III and Marshall B. Cummings.
`
`18. As alleged herein, the ‘838 Patent was not duly and legally issued.
`
`19. On information and belief, ChriMar is the current assignee of the ‘838
`
`Patent.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`7
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-7
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 8 of 137 Pg ID 8
`
`
`
`20. The ‘019 Patent, entitled “Network Equipment and Optional Tether,”
`
`reports that it was filed on September 14, 2012 as Application No. 13/615,726, and
`
`issued on June 2, 2015. The ‘019 Patent reports that it is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 13/370,918, now the ‘107 Patent, which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 12/239,001, filed on September 26, 2008, now the ‘012 Patent,
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 10/668,708, filed on September 23,
`
`2003, now the ‘250 Patent, which is a continuation of Application No. 09/370,430,
`
`filed on August 9, 1999, now the ‘622 Patent, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed on April 8, 1999. The inventors named on
`
`the ‘019 Patent are John F. Austermann, III and Marshall B. Cummings.
`
`21. As alleged herein, the ‘019 Patent was not duly and legally issued.
`
`22. On information and belief, ChriMar is the current assignee of the ‘019
`
`Patent.
`
`23. The ‘107 Patent, entitled “Piece of Ethernet Terminal Equipment,”
`
`reports that it was filed on February 10, 2012 as Application No. 13/370,918, and
`
`issued on January 27, 2015. The ‘107 Patent reports that it is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 12/239,001, filed on September 26, 2008, now the ‘012 Patent,
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 10/668,708, filed on September 23,
`
`2003, now the ‘250 Patent, which is a continuation of Application No. 09/370,430,
`
`filed on August 9, 1999, now the ‘622 Patent, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`8
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-8
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 9 of 137 Pg ID 9
`
`
`
`application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed on April 8, 1999. The inventors named on
`
`the ‘107 Patent are John F. Austermann, III and Marshall B. Cummings.
`
`24. As alleged herein, the ‘107 Patent was not duly and legally issued.
`
`25. On information and belief, ChriMar is the current assignee of the ‘107
`
`Patent.
`
`26. The ’760 Patent, entitled “Network Systems and Optional Tethers,”
`
`reports that it was filed on September 14, 2012 as Application No. 13/615,755, and
`
`issued on December 2, 2014. The ‘760 Patent reports that it is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 13/370,918, filed on February 10, 2012, now the ‘107 Patent,
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 12/239,001, filed on September 26,
`
`2008, now the ‘012 Patent, which is a continuation of Application No. 10/668,708,
`
`filed on September 23, 2003, now the ‘250 Patent, which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 09/370,430, filed on August 9, 1999, now the ‘622 Patent, which
`
`is a continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed on April 8,
`
`1999. The inventors named on the ‘760 Patent are John F. Austermann, III and
`
`Marshall B. Cummings.
`
`27. As alleged herein, the ‘760 Patent was not duly and legally issued.
`
`28. On information and belief, ChriMar is the current assignee of the ‘760
`
`patent.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`9
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-9
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 10 of 137 Pg ID 10
`
`
`
`29. The ‘012 Patent, entitled “System and Method for Adapting a Piece of
`
`Terminal Equipment,” reports that it was filed on September 26, 2008 as
`
`Application No. 12/239,001, and issued on April 10, 2012. The ‘012 Patent
`
`reports that it is a continuation of Application No. 10/668,708, filed on September
`
`23, 2003, now the ‘250 Patent, which is a continuation of Application No.
`
`09/370,430, filed on August 9, 1999, now the ‘622 Patent, which is a continuation-
`
`in-part of application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed on April 8, 1999. The inventors
`
`named on the ‘012 Patent are John F. Austermann, III and Marshall B. Cummings.
`
`30. As alleged herein, the ‘012 Patent was not duly and legally issued.
`
`31. On information and belief, ChriMar is the current assignee of the ‘012
`
`Patent.
`
`32. The ‘250 patent, entitled “System for Communicating with Electronic
`
`Equipment,” reports that it was filed on September 23, 2003, issued on November
`
`25, 2008 and then had a reexamination certificate issued on March 1, 2011. The
`
`‘250 patent reports that it is a continuation of Application No. 09/370,430, filed on
`
`August 9, 1999, now U.S. patent No. 6,650,622, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`Application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed on April 8, 1999. The inventors named
`
`on the ‘250 patent are John F. Austermann, III, and Marshall B. Cummings.
`
`33. As alleged herein, the ‘250 Patent was not duly and legally issued.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`10
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-10
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 11 of 137 Pg ID 11
`
`
`
`34. On information and belief, ChriMar is the current assignee of the ‘250
`
`patent.
`
`35. As alleged herein, on information and belief, Plaintiffs believe that
`
`ChriMar asserts, and will assert, that the ‘250, ‘012, ‘760, ‘107, ‘838, and ‘019
`
`Patents cover products with Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) functionality.
`
`B. CHRIMAR’S LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
`TARGETING PRODUCTS WITH POWER OVER ETHERNET
`FUNCTIONALITY
`
`36. For many years, ChriMar has actively pursued a patent licensing and
`
`enforcement campaign using its patent portfolio to target products with PoE
`
`functionality specified by certain standards promulgated by the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) and sellers of such products,
`
`including numerous California-based companies.
`
`37. ChriMar’s licensing and enforcement campaign began in 2001 when it
`
`sued manufacturers of products with PoE functionality in this district for allegedly
`
`infringing the ‘260 patent. ChriMar initially sued Cisco Systems, Inc., for alleged
`
`infringement of the ‘260 patent in 2001, accusing, for example, Cisco’s IP phones.5
`
`ChriMar thereafter claimed that the ‘260 patent was “essential” to the IEEE PoE
`
`
`5 ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:01-cv-71113 (E.D. Mich.) (filed Mar.
`21, 2001, terminated Sept. 15, 2005).
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`11
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-11
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 12 of 137 Pg ID 12
`
`
`
`standards.6 ChriMar also sued D-Link Systems ( “D-Link”)7 and Foundry
`
`Networks (“Foundry”),8
`
`two other California-based companies, and also
`
`PowerDsine, Ltd. (“PowerDsine”),9 based on their respective sales of products
`
`with PoE functionality accusing those companies of infringing the ‘260 patent
`
`based on sales of those products. D-Link and PowerDsine took licenses to the ‘260
`
`patent after favorable rulings were issued, and ultimately an additional claim of the
`
`‘260 patent (claim 17) was invalidated by the court in the Foundry action, leading
`
`to dismissal of that action and summary affirmance by the Federal Circuit.
`
`38. Shortly after issuance of the ‘250 patent, which ChriMar deliberately
`
`failed to disclose to the IEEE standards bodies that developed the PoE standards,
`
`ChriMar continued its licensing and enforcement campaign against sellers of
`
`products with PoE functionality, including HP and a number of other California-
`
`based companies. ChriMar sued Waters Network Systems, LLC for allegedly
`
`infringing the ‘250 patent in 2008, and went on to sue multiple additional sellers of
`
`products with PoE functionality (including California-based companies Danpex
`
`6See
`at
`available
`Assurance,
`of
`Letter
`ChriMar
`http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/loa-802_3af-chrimar-03Dec2001.pdf.
`7 ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., No. 2:06-cv-13937 (E.D. Mich.) (filed
`Sept. 6, 2006, terminated Apr. 21, 2010).
`8ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Foundry Networks, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-13936 (E.D. Mich.)
`(filed Sept. 6, 2006, terminated Aug. 1, 2012).
`9 ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. PowerDsine LTD., No. 2:01-cv-74081 (E.D. Mich.) (filed
`Oct. 26, 2001, terminated Mar. 31, 2010).
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`12
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-12
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 13 of 137 Pg ID 13
`
`
`
`Corp., Garrettcom, Inc., and Edgewater Networks) in 2009.10 Following
`
`conclusion of a reexamination proceeding involving the ‘250 patent, ChriMar sued
`
`HP, and also California-based Cisco Systems, Inc., Avaya, Inc., and Extreme
`
`Networks, both in the International Trade Commission,11 and in district court,12 for
`
`allegedly infringing the ‘250 patent by selling products with PoE functionality,
`
`including among other products, IP telephones, wireless access points, and wireless
`
`network cameras.
`
`39. ChriMar expanded its licensing and enforcement campaign against
`
`products with PoE functionality to include the ‘012 patent. ChriMar filed five
`
`actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘012 patent by various manufacturers and re-sellers of products
`
`
`10 See ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Waters Network Sys., LLC, No. 2:08-cv-00453 (E.D.
`Tex.) (filed Nov. 25, 2008, terminated June 19, 2009); ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Danpex Corp., No. 2:09-cv-00044 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Feb. 6, 2009, terminated May
`20, 2009); ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Garrettcom, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00085 (E.D. Tex.)
`(filed Mar. 23, 2009), No. 3:09-cv-04516 (N.D. Cal.) (terminated Dec. 22, 2009);
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. KTI Network, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex.) (filed July
`30, 2009, terminated Nov. 25, 2009).
`11 In the Matter of Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and
`Products Containing the same, including Power over Ethernet Telephones,
`Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and other Devices Used in LANs, and
`Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-817 (instituted Dec. 1, 2011, terminated Aug. 1, 2012).
`12 ChriMar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01050 (D. Del.),
`subsequently transferred as No. 3:13-cv-1300-JSW (N.D. Cal.).
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`13
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-13
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 14 of 137 Pg ID 14
`
`
`
`with PoE functionality, including IP telephones, wireless access points, and
`
`wireless network cameras.
`
`40. ChriMar brought suit against Aastra Technologies Limited and Aastra
`
`USA Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-879, on November 8,
`
`2013, alleging infringement of the ‘012 patent, for among other things, making,
`
`using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing IP telephones, which, on
`
`information and belief, include PoE functionality.
`
`41. ChriMar brought suit against Alcatel-Lucent, Inc., Alcatel-Lucent
`
`USA, Inc., and Alcatel-Lucent Holdings, Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`Case No. 6:13-cv-880, on November 8, 2013, alleging infringement of the ‘012
`
`patent, for among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or
`
`importing wireless access points, which, on information and belief, include PoE
`
`functionality. ChriMar subsequently filed a separate suit against Alcatel-Lucent
`
`S.A., Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Alcatel-Lucent Holdings, Inc., and Alcatel-Lucent
`
`Enterprise USA Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:15-cv-163, on
`
`March 9, 2015, also alleging infringement of the ‘012 and ‘107 Patents, for among
`
`other things, making using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing VOIP
`
`phones, wireless access points, and small cells, which, on information and belief,
`
`include PoE functionality.
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`14
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-14
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 15 of 137 Pg ID 15
`
`
`
`42. ChriMar brought suit against AMX, LLC, in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-881, on November 8, 2013, alleging infringement of the
`
`‘012 patent, for among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing wireless access points, which, on information and belief, include
`
`PoE functionality. ChriMar subsequently filed a separate suit against AMX, LLC
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:15-cv-164, on March 6, 2015, alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘012 and ‘107 Patents, for among other things, making, using,
`
`offering for sale, selling, and/or importing touch panels, wireless access points,
`
`docking stations, wireless gateways, audio/video receivers, keypads, content
`
`sharing devices, entry communicators, control pads, communications gateways,
`
`multi-format transmitters/switches, encoder/decoders, phone controllers, and PoE
`
`extractors, which, on information and belief, include PoE functionality.
`
`43. ChriMar brought suit against Grandstream Networks, Inc., in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-882, on November 8, 2013, alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘012 patent, for among other things, making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, and/or importing IP telephones and wireless network cameras,
`
`which, on information and belief, include PoE functionality.
`
`44. ChriMar brought suit against Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-883, on November 8, 2013, alleging
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`15
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-15
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 16 of 137 Pg ID 16
`
`
`
`infringement of the ‘012 patent, for among other things, making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, and/or importing IP telephones, which, on information and belief,
`
`include PoE functionality.
`
`45. Most recently, ChriMar filed at least 44 additional lawsuits in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas: 6 suits on June 22, 2015;13 25 suits on July 1, 2015;14
`
`
`13
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Advanced Network Devices, Inc., No. 6-15-
`cv-0577 (E.D. Texas June 22, 2015) (asserting '012, '107, and '019 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Arrowspan, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-0579 (E.D. Texas
`June 22, 2015) (asserting '012, '107, and '019 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al.
`v. Biamp Systems Corp., No. 6-15-cv-0578 (E.D. Texas June 22, 2015) (asserting
`'012, '107, and '019 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Hawk-I Security Inc.,
`No. 6-15-cv-0580 (E.D. Texas June 22, 2015) (asserting '012, '107, and '019
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. IPitomy Communications, LLC, No. 6-15-
`cv-0582 (E.D. Texas June 22, 2015) (asserting '012, '107, and '019 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. KeyScan, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-0583 (E.D. Texas June
`22, 2015) (asserting '012, '107, and '019 Patents).
`14
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Accton Technology Corporation USA, No. 6-
`15-cv-00616 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00618 (E.D.
`Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. et al. v. Advantech Corporation, No. 6-15-cv-00619 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015)
`(asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Alcatel
`Lucent, No. 6-15-cv-00614 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '760 and '838
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Allworx Corporation, No. 6-15-cv-00620
`(E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar
`Systems, Inc. et al. v. Alpha Networks, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00621 (E.D. Texas July 1,
`2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v.
`AMX, LLC, No. 6-15-cv-00615 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '760 and '838
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. ASUS Computer International, No. 6-15-
`cv-00624 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. ASUSTek Computer International, Inc., No. 6-15-
`cv-00623 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Black Box Corporation, No. 6-15-cv-00622 (E.D.
`(continued…)
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`16
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-16
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 17 of 137 Pg ID 17
`
`
`
`and 13 suits on July 2, 2015.15 In each of these 44 lawsuits, ChriMar asserts
`
`infringement predicated on the accused products’ compliance with the PoE
`
`
`Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. et al. v. Buffalo Americas, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00625 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015)
`(asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Costar
`Technologies, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00626 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012,
`'760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Dell Inc., No. 6-15-cv-
`00639 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Eagle Eye Networks, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00627 (E.D.
`Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. et al. v. Edimax Computer Company, No. 6-15-cv-00628 (E.D. Texas July 1,
`2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v.
`EnGenius Technologies, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00640 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015)
`(asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v.
`Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00630 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting
`'012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Korenix USA
`Corporation, No. 6-15-cv-00631 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760,
`'107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co.,
`Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00632 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and
`'838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Moxa Americas Inc., No. 6-15-cv-
`00633 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. NETGEAR, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00634 (E.D. Texas
`July 1, 2015) (asserting 012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et
`al. v. NetMedia Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00635 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012,
`'760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Phihong USA
`Corporation, No. 6-15-cv-00636 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760,
`'107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.,
`No. 6-15-cv-00637 (E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00638
`(E.D. Texas July 1, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents).
`15
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Allied Telesis, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00652 (E.D.
`Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. et al. v. Belden Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00649 (E.D. Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting
`'012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Belkin
`International, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00650 (E.D. Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012,
`'760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`(continued…)
`
`{36692/1/DT969488.DOC;1}
`
`
`17
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003-17
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`

`2:15-cv-12569-AC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 18 of 137 Pg ID 18
`
`
`
`standards embodied in IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at. For example, in ChriMar
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Accton Technology USA, No. 6-15-cv-0616-JRG-JDL (E.D.
`
`Texas), ChriMar’s infringement allegations read, in part, as follows: “Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import
`
`Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) powered devices (“PDs”) that comply with and/or are
`
`compatible with IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at.” The additional 44 new cases filed
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas contain similar allegations.
`
`46. ChriMar’s website, www.cmspatents.com, confirms that ChriMar’s
`
`licensing and enforcement campaign targets products with PoE functionality for
`
`allegedly infringing ChriMar’s patents. ChriMar’s website includes a number of
`
`
`No. 6-15-cv-00653 (E.D. Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 6-15-cv-00651 (E.D.
`Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. et al. v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc., No. 6-
`15-cv-00643 (E.D. Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838
`Patents); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. StarTech.com USA, LLP, No. 6-15-cv-
`00645 (E.D. Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents);
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al. v. TP-Link USA Corporation, No. 6-15-cv-00641
`(E.D. Texas July 2, 2015) (asserting '012, '760, '107, and '838 Patents); ChriMar
`Systems, Inc. et