IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`6:15–CV–00618–JRG–JDL (LEAD CASE)
`6:15–CV–00616–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00619–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00652–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00620–JDL
`6:15–CV–00649–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00650–JDL
`6:15–CV–00622–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00625–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00626–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00639–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00653–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00627–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00640–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00651–JDL
`6:15–CV–00643–JDL
`6:15–CV–00630–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00633–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00634–JDL
`6:15–CV–00636–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00641–JDL
`6:15–CV–00644–JRG–JDL
`6:15–CV–00648–JRG–JDL
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC. et al.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v. ADTRAN, INC.
`v. ACCTON TECH. CORP. USA et al.
`v. ADVANTECH, INC.
`v. ALLIED TELESIS, INC.
`v. ALLWORX CORPORATION
`v. BELDEN, INC. et al.
`v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL INC.
`v. BLACK BOX CORP.
`v. BUFFALO AMERICAS, INC.
`v. COSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`v. DELL INC. and AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC.
`v. D–LINK SYSTEMS, INC.
`v. EAGLE EYE NETWORKS, INC.
`v. ENGENIUS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`v. FORTINET, INC.
`v. HUAWEI ENTERPRISE USA INC. et al.
`v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`v. MOXA AMERICAS INC.
`v. NETGEAR, INC.
`v. PHIHONG USA CORP.
`v. TP–LINK USA CORP.
`v. TRENDNET, INC.
`v. WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“Chrimar”) and Chrimar
`
`Holding Company, LLC (“Holding”) file this Second Amended Complaint Against Consolidated
`
`Defendants (“the Complaint”) for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (“the
`
`’012 Patent”), 8,942,107 (“the ’107 Patent”), 8,902,760 (“the ’760 Patent”), and 9,019,838 (“the
`
`’838 Patent”), collectively the “Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 1
`
`Page 1
`
` Dell Inc.
` Exhibit 1022
`
`

`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Chrimar is a Michigan corporation with a place of business located at 36528
`
`Grand River Avenue, Suite A–1, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335.
`
`2.
`
`Holding is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business located at
`
`911 NW Loop 281, Suite 211–30, Longview, Texas 75604.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Chrimar and Holding are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “CMS.”
`
`Accton Technology Corporation USA (“Accton”) is a California corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 1200 Crossman Avenue, Suite 130, Sunnyvale,
`
`California 94089. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Accton.
`
`5.
`
`ADTRAN, Inc. (“ADTRAN”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at 901 Explorer Boulevard, Huntsville, Alabama 35806. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over ADTRAN.
`
`6.
`
`Advantech Corporation (“Advantech”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 380 Fairview Way, Milpitas, California 95035. This Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over Advantech.
`
`7.
`
`Aerohive Networks, Inc. (“Aerohive”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 330 Gibraltar Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94089. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Aerohive.
`
`8.
`
`Allied Telesis, Inc. (“Allied Telesis”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 3041 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California 95134. This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Allied Telesis.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 2
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`9.
`
`Allworx Corporation (“Allworx”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 245 East Main Street, Rochester, New York 14604. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Allworx.
`
`10.
`
`Belden Inc. (“Belden”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 1 N. Brentwood Blvd., 15th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63105. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Belden.
`
`11.
`
`Belkin International, Inc. (“Belkin”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 1205 E. Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, California 90094. This Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over Belkin.
`
`12.
`
`Black Box Corporation (“Black Box”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 1000 Park Drive, Lawrence, Pennsylvania 15055–1018. This Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over Black Box.
`
`13.
`
`Black Box Corporation of Pennsylvania (“Black Box of PA”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business located at 1000 Park Drive, Lawrence,
`
`Pennsylvania 15055–1018. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Black Box of PA.
`
`14.
`
`Buffalo Americas, Inc. (“Buffalo”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 11100 Metric Blvd., Suite 750, Austin, Texas 78758. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Buffalo.
`
`15.
`
`Costar Technologies, Inc. (“Costar Technologies”) is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 101 Wrangler Drive, Suite 201, Coppell, Texas 75019.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Costar.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 3
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`16.
`
`Costar Video Systems, LLC (“Costar Video”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 101 Wrangler Drive, Suite 201, Coppell, Texas 75019. This
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Costar.
`
`17. Dell Inc. (“Dell”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. This Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Dell.
`
`18. D–Link Systems, Incorporated (“D–Link”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 17595 Mt. Herrmann Street, Fountain Valley, California
`
`92708. This Court has personal jurisdiction over D–Link.
`
`19.
`
`Eagle Eye Networks, Inc. (“Eagle Eye”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 4611 Bee Caves Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78746. This
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Eagle Eye.
`
`20.
`
`Edgecore USA Corporation d/b/a/ Edgecore Networks Corporation (“Edgecore”)
`
`is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 20 Mason, Irvine,
`
`California 92618. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Edgecore.
`
`21.
`
`EnGenius Technologies, Inc. (“EnGenius”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 1580 Scenic Ave., Costa Mesa, California 92626. This
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over EnGenius.
`
`22.
`
`Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 899 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, California 94086. This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Fortinet.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 4
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`23.
`
`GarrettCom Inc. (“GarrettCom”) is a California corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 47823 Westinghouse Drive, Fremont, California 94539. This Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over GarrettCom.
`
`24. Hirschmann Automation and Control, Inc. (“Hirschmann”) is a company that is
`
`owned by Belden Inc. Hirschmann has appeared in this action.
`
`25. Huawei Technologies USA Inc. (“Huawei Technologies”) is a Texas corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 500, Plano, Texas
`
`75024. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Technologies.
`
`26. Huawei Enterprise USA Inc. (“Huawei Enterprise”) is a California corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200, Cupertino,
`
`California 95014. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Enterprise.
`
`27.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, California 94089. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Juniper.
`
`28. Moxa Americas Inc. (“Moxa”) is a California corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at Moxa Corporate Plaza, 601 Valencia Ave., Suite 100, Brea, California
`
`92823. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Moxa.
`
`29. NETGEAR, INC. (“NETGEAR”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 350 E. Plumeria Drive, San Jose, California 95134–1911. This Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over NETGEAR.
`
`30.
`
`Phihong USA Corporation (“Phihong”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 47800 Fremont Blvd., Fremont, California 94538. This
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Phihong.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 5
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`31.
`
`SMC Networks, Inc. (“SMC”) is a Delaware corporation with it principal place of
`
`business located at 20 Mason, Irvine, California 92618. This Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`SMC.
`
`32.
`
`TP–Link USA Corporation (“TP–Link”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 975 Overland Ct., San Dimas, California 91773. This Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over TP–Link.
`
`33.
`
`TRENDnet Inc. (“TRENDnet”) is a California corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at 20675 Manhattan Place, Torrance, California 90501. This Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over TRENDnet.
`
`34. WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (“WatchGuard”) is a Washington corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 500, Seattle,
`
`Washington 98104. This Court has personal jurisdiction over WatchGuard.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over each Defendant because each
`
`seq.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas, including in
`
`this district.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 6
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`39.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’012 Patent, entitled “System and
`
`Method for Adapting a Piece of Terminal Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of
`
`the ’012 Patent. CMS owns all substantial rights in the ’012 Patent. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’012 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint [ECF No. 1 in lead
`
`case].
`
`40.
`
`The ’012 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`41.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’107 Patent, entitled “Piece of Ethernet
`
`Terminal Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’107 Patent. CMS owns all
`
`substantial rights in the ’107 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’107 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint [ECF No. 1 in lead case].
`
`42.
`
`The ’107 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`43.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’760 Patent, entitled “Network System
`
`and Optional Tethers” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’760 Patent. CMS owns all
`
`substantial rights in the ’760 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’760 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint [ECF No. 1 in lead case].
`
`44.
`
`The ’760 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`45.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’838 Patent, entitled “Central Piece of
`
`Network Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’838 Patent. CMS owns all
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 7
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`substantial rights in the ’838 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’838 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint [ECF No. 1 in lead case].
`
`46.
`
`The ’838 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`47.
`
`Upon information and belief, each Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, sells,
`
`and/or imports Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) powered devices (“PDs”) that comply with and/or
`
`are compatible with the PoE Standards, namely IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, each Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, sells,
`
`and/or imports PoE power sourcing equipment (“PSEs”) that comply with and/or are compatible
`
`with the PoE Standards, namely IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at.
`
`49.
`
`The Accused PD Products and the Accused PSE Products are collectively the
`
`“Accused Products.”
`
`50.
`
`The Accused PD Products of Defendants Accton, Edgecore, and SMC include,
`
`but are not limited to, wireless access points such as the EAP1018FA Enterprise Access Point
`
`and PoE phones such as the VP3302 VoIP Phone. The Accused PSE Products of Defendants
`
`Accton, Edgecore, and SMC include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the ES3526–
`
`PoE Switch.
`
`51. Defendant ADTRAN’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the Bluesocket 1920 Access Point and PoE phones such as the IP
`
`650 IP Phone. Defendant ADTRAN’s Accused PSE Products incluce, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`switches such as the NetVanta 1234P Switch.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 8
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`52. Defendant Advantech’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`video surveillance equipment such as the NVS–300 Video Recorder, PoE network video
`
`recorders such as the ARK–2151S Network Video Recorder, and PoE splitters such as the EKI–
`
`2701PSI Splitter. Defendant Advantech’s Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`PoE switches such as the EKI–2726FHPI Switch and PoE PSEs such as the EKI–2701HPI.
`
`53. Defendant Allied Telesis’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the Extricom RP–23ac Access Point. Defendant Allied Telesis’s
`
`Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the AT–FS708/PoE
`
`Switch and the EXSW–1632C Switch.
`
`54. Defendant Allworx’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`phones such as the 9112 IP Phone. Defendant Allworx’s Accused PSE Products include, but are
`
`not limited to, PoE switches such as the PowerFlex P4848 Switch.
`
`55.
`
`The Accused PD Products of Defendants Belden, GarrettCom, and Hirschmann
`
`include, but are not limited to, wireless access points such as the BAT300–Rail Access Point.
`
`The Accused PSE Products of Defendants Belden, GarrettCom, and Hirschmann include, but
`
`are not limited to, PoE switches such as the SPIDER II 8TX PoE Switch and PoE midspans such
`
`as the BL–6000 Inline Power Hub.
`
`56. Defendant Belkin’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, wireless
`
`access points such as the LAPN300 Access Point and PoE cameras such as the LCAD03FLN–EU
`
`Camera. Defendant Belkin’s Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to, PoE switches
`
`such as the LGS116P Switch, the Lynksys LGS318P 18-Port Business Gigabit Smart Switch
`
`PoE+, the Linksys LGS308P 8-Port Business Gigabit Smart Switch PoE+, and the Linksys
`
`LGS326P 26-Port Business Gigabit Smart Switch PoE+.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 9
`
`Page 9
`
`

`
`57.
`
`The Accused PD Products of Defendants Black Box and Black Box of PA include,
`
`but are not limited to, wireless access points such as the LWN602WA Access Point, PoE splitters
`
`such as the LPS2001 Splitter, and PoE media converters such as the LPD500 Media Converter.
`
`The Accused PSE Products of Defendants Black Box and Black Box of PA include, but are not
`
`limited to, PoE switches such as the LPB1205A Switch and PoE midspans such as the LPJ008A–
`
`F Gigabit Injector.
`
`58. Defendant Buffalo’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, wireless
`
`access points such as the WAPS–APG600H Access Point. Defendant Buffalo’s Accused PSE
`
`Products include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the BSL–POE–G2105U Switch.
`
`59.
`
`The Accused PD Products of Defendants Costar Technologies and Costar Video
`
`include, but are not limited to, PoE cameras such as the CBI2109IRF Bullet Camera. The
`
`Accused PSE Products of Defendants Costar Technologies and Costar Video include, but are not
`
`limited to, PoE switches such as the CRIS10 Switch.
`
`60.
`
`The Accused PD Products of Defendants Dell and Aerohive include, but are not
`
`limited to, wireless access points such as the AP330 and PoE IP cameras. The Accused PSE
`
`Products of Defendants Dell and Aerohive include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as
`
`the N3000 Series Switch.
`
`61. Defendant D–Link’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, wireless
`
`access points such as the DAP–2360 Access Point and PoE cameras such as the DCS–3010
`
`Camera. Defendant D–Link’s Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`switches such as the DGS–3120–48PC Switch and PoE midspans such as the DWL–P1012
`
`Midspan.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 10
`
`Page 10
`
`

`
`62. Defendant Eagle Eyes’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, IP
`
`cameras. Defendant Eagle Eyes’s Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`switches and bridges such as the EN–SW05i–001 Switch.
`
`63. Defendant EnGenius’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the EWS860AP Access Point and PoE cameras such as the
`
`EDS5110 Camera. Defendant EnGenius’s Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`PoE switches such as the EGS7228FP Switch.
`
`64. Defendant Fortinet’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the FortiGate–30D–POE Access Point and PoE phones such as the
`
`TSv480i IP Phone. Defendant Fortinet’s Accused PSE Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`PoE switches such as the 124B–POE Access Switch.
`
`65.
`
`The Accused PD Products of Defendants Huawei Technologies and Huawei
`
`Enterprise include, but are not limited to, wireless access points such as the AP6610DN–AGN
`
`Access Point and PoE phones such as the eSpace 7910 Phone. The Accused PSE Products of
`
`Defendants Huawei Technologies and Huawei Enterprise include, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`switches such as the S2700–52P–PWR–EI Switch.
`
`66. Defendant Juniper’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, wireless
`
`access points such as the WLA321 Access Point. Defendant Juniper’s Accused PSE Products
`
`include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the EX2200 Series (w/PoE) Switch (e.g.,
`
`EX2200–24P).
`
`67. Defendant Moxa’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, wireless
`
`access points such as the AWK–3191 Access Point. Defendant Moxa’s Accused PSE Products
`
`include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the EDS–P308 Switch.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 11
`
`Page 11
`
`

`
`68. Defendant NETGEAR’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the WG302 Access Point. Defendant NETGEAR’s Accused PSE
`
`Products include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the FS108P Switch.
`
`69. Defendant Phihong’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to, PoE
`
`splitters such as the POE21–120 Splitter. Defendant Phihong’s Accused PSE Products include,
`
`but are not limited to, PoE midspans such as POE37OU–480–8 Midspan.
`
`70. Defendant TP–Link’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the EAP220 Access Point. Defendant TP–Link’s Accused PSE
`
`Products include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the TL–SG3424P Switch.
`
`71. Defendant TRENDnet’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`PoE cameras such as the TV–IP343PI Camera. Defendant TRENDnet’s Accused PSE Products
`
`include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the TPE–S80 Switch.
`
`72. Defendant WatchGuard’s Accused PD Products include, but are not limited to,
`
`wireless access points such as the AP100 Access Point. Defendant WatchGuard’s Accused PSE
`
`Products include, but are not limited to, PoE PSE such as the Firebox M440.
`
`73.
`
`Upon information and belief, each Defendant’s Accused Products are offered for
`
`sale and sold throughout the United States, including within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`74.
`
`Each Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed its Accused Products into
`
`the stream of commerce with the expectation that these products will be purchased and used by
`
`end users in the United States, including end users in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`75.
`
`Each Defendant provides direct and indirect support concerning its Accused
`
`Products to end users, including end users within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 12
`
`Page 12
`
`

`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012 BY ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`76.
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 75 herein by reference.
`
`77. Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’012 Patent in violation of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United
`
`States the Accused PD Products.
`
`78.
`
`Each Defendant has been on notice of the ’012 Patent since at least as early as the
`
`filing date of the Original Complaint. Notwithstanding that notice of infringement, each
`
`Defendant has continued to infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`79.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of each Defendant’s infringing conduct
`
`described in this Count.
`
`COUNT II
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012 BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 79 herein by reference.
`
`The infringement of the ’012 Patent by Defendants Accton, ADTRAN,
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`Advantech, Aerohive, Allied Telesis, Allworx, Belden, Belkin, Black Box, Black Box of PA,
`
`Buffalo, Costar Technologies, Costar Video, Dell, D–Link, Eagle Eye, Edgecore, EnGenius,
`
`GarrettCom, Hirschmann, Huawei Technologies, Huawei Enterprise,
`
`Juniper, Moxa,
`
`NETGEAR, SMC, and TP–Link has been and is willful.
`
`82.
`
`Because the infringement of the ’012 Patent by the Defendants listed in the
`
`preceding paragraph has been and is willful, Plaintiffs seek enhanced damages from each of these
`
`Defendants of up to three times the amount found or assessed under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 13
`
`Page 13
`
`

`
`COUNT III
`INDUCED INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012 BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 82 herein by reference.
`
`In addition to the foregoing acts of infringement, Defendants Fortinet, Phihong,
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`TRENDnet, and WatchGuard have and continue to indirectly infringe the ’012 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing its partners, customers, distributors, and/or end users
`
`to use, offer for sale, and sell the Accused PD Products, and therefore each such Defendant
`
`induces others to directly infringe the ’012 Patent. End users that use the Accused PD Products
`
`directly infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`85.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of the acts of indirect infringement described
`
`in this Count.
`
`COUNT IV
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107 BY ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`86.
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 85 herein by reference.
`
`87. Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’107 Patent in violation of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United
`
`States the Accused PD Products.
`
`88.
`
`Each Defendant has been on notice of the ’107 Patent since at least as early as the
`
`filing date of the Original Complaint. Notwithstanding that notice of infringement, each
`
`Defendant has continued to infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`89.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of each Defendant’s infringing conduct
`
`described in this Count.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 14
`
`Page 14
`
`

`
`COUNT V
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107 BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 89 herein by reference.
`
`The infringement of the ’107 Patent by Defendants Accton, ADTRAN,
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Advantech, Aerohive, Allied Telesis, Allworx, Belden, Belkin, Black Box, Black Box of PA,
`
`Buffalo, Costar Technologies, Costar Video, Dell, D–Link, Eagle Eye, Edgecore, EnGenius,
`
`GarrettCom, Hirschmann, Huawei Technologies, Huawei Enterprise,
`
`Juniper, Moxa,
`
`NETGEAR, SMC, and TP–Link has been and is willful.
`
`92.
`
`Because the infringement of the ’107 Patent by the Defendants listed in the
`
`preceding paragraph has been and is willful, Plaintiffs seek enhanced damages from each of these
`
`Defendants of up to three times the amount found or assessed under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT VI
`INDUCED INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107 BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 92 herein by reference.
`
`In addition to the foregoing acts of infringement, Defendants Fortinet, Phihong,
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`TRENDnet, and WatchGuard have and continue to indirectly infringe the ’107 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing its partners, customers, distributors, and/or end users
`
`to use, offer for sale, and sell the Accused PD Products, and therefore each such Defendant
`
`induces others to directly infringe the ’107 Patent. End users that use the Accused PD Products
`
`directly infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`95.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of the acts of indirect infringement described
`
`in this Count.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 15
`
`Page 15
`
`

`
`COUNT VII
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760 BY ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`96.
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 95 herein by reference.
`
`97. Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’760 Patent in violation of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United
`
`States the Accused Products.
`
`98.
`
`Each Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe the ’760 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the Accused Products
`
`into the United States.
`
`99.
`
`The Accused Products implement a technology called “Power over Ethernet” or
`
`“PoE,” which allows for provision of electrical power to a networked device over the same
`
`Ethernet cable that is used for data transmission. One example of a PoE device is a Voice Over
`
`Internet Protocol (“VOIP”) business telephone. A PoE VOIP phone does not require an AC
`
`adapter that plugs into a an electrical outlet because the power to operate the phone is provided
`
`through the Ethernet cable, which also carries the telephone signals between the phone and the
`
`network.
`
`100. The Accused Products fall within two categories of PoE equipment — “Powered
`
`Devices” (“PDs”), which are devices that receive power via an Ethernet cable (such as a PoE
`
`VOIP phone), and “Power Sourcing Equipment” (“PSEs”), which are devices connected to the
`
`opposite end of the Ethernet cable and send power to the PDs. The Accused PD Products and
`
`the Accused PSE Products operate cooperatively to provide PoE. The ’760 Patent is a system-
`
`level patent that implicates the provision of PoE by the Accused PD and PSE Products in
`
`combination.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 16
`
`Page 16
`
`

`
`101. Each Accused Product complies with and/or is compatible with the PoE
`
`Standards, namely IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at. More specifically, each Accused Product
`
`implements the detection and classification protocols as specified in the PoE Standards.
`
`102. The detection protocol of the PoE Standards ensures that the Accused PSE
`
`Products only send power to PDs. The classification protocol of the PoE Standards ensures that
`
`the Accused PSE Products supply the correct power level to the Accused PD Products.
`
`103. The detection and classification protocol sections of the PoE Standards are
`
`explicit — down to the circuit level — as to how these functions must be implemented in the
`
`Accused Products.
`
`104. Each Accused Product includes specialized hardware and circuitry in order to
`
`implement the detection and classification protocols of the PoE Standards. Such hardware and
`
`circuitry includes, but is not limited to, a PoE controller, a detection circuit path that includes a
`
`PoE detection signature resistance, and a classification circuit path that includes a PoE power
`
`classification signature resistance.
`
`105. Each Accused Product is a component of a patented machine, manufacture,
`
`combination, or system and constitutes a material part of the invention as claimed in the ’760
`
`Patent. For example, the ’760 Patent is a system-level patent that implicates the detection and
`
`classification protocols of the Poe Standards and each Accused Product includes specialized
`
`hardware and circuitry to implement the detection and classification protocols of the PoE
`
`Standards.
`
`106. Since receiving notice of Plaintiffs’ patent rights under the ’760 Patent, each
`
`Defendant knows that the Accused Products are especially made or especially adapted for use in
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 17
`
`Page 17
`
`

`
`a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’760 Patent, as it markets and/or advertises the
`
`Accused Products as having PoE capability.
`
`107. The Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable
`
`for substantial non-infringing use. Each Accused Product incorporates specialized hardware and
`
`circuitry to implement the detection and classification protocols of the PoE Standards. The
`
`incorporation of this specialized hardware and circuitry serves no function other than to
`
`determine whether an Ethernet-connected device is a PoE-compliant device (“detection”), and,
`
`if so, the amount of power it is designed to accept (“classification”). There is no other established
`
`or practical non-infringing use of the specific specialized hardware and circuitry as required by the
`
`PoE Standards and claimed by the ’760 Patent.
`
`108. The fact that the Accused Products may also incorporate other circuitry or
`
`functionality that does not implicate the ’760 Patent is irrelevant for determining whether the
`
`Accused Products have substantial non-infringing uses. See Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`109. Each Defendant’s customers that use the Accused PD or PSE Products in their
`
`PoE networks directly infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`110. Each Defendant has been on notice of the ’760 Patent since at least as early as the
`
`filing date of the Original Complaint. Notwithstanding that notice of infringement, each
`
`Defendant has continued to infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`111. CMS has been damaged as a result of each Defendant’s infringing conduct
`
`described in this Count.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS
`
`PAGE 18
`
`Page 18
`
`

`
`COUNT VIII
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760 BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
`
`112. CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 111 herein by reference.
`
`113. The infringement of the ’760 Patent by Defendants Accton, ADTRAN,
`
`Advantech, Aerohive, Allied Telesis, Allworx, Belden, Belkin, Black Box, Black Box of PA,
`
`Buffalo, Costar Technologies, Costar Video, Dell, D–Link, Eagle Eye, Edgecore, EnGenius,
`
`GarrettCom, Hirschmann, Huawei Technologies, Huawei Enterprise,
`
`Juniper, Moxa,
`
`NETGEAR, SMC, and TP–Link has been and is willful.
`
`114. Because the infringement of the ’760 Patent by the Defendants listed in the
`
`preceding paragraph has been and is willful, Plaintiffs seek enhanced damages from each of these
`
`Defendants of up to three times the amount found or assessed under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT IX
`INDUCED INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760 BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
`
`115. CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 114 herein by reference.
`
`116.
`
`In addition to the foregoing acts of infringement, Defendants Fortinet, Phihong,
`
`TRENDnet, and WatchGuard have and continue to indirectly infringe the ’760 Patent in