Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01596
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`SOCKEYE LICENSING TX LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Sockeye Licensing TX LLC (“Sockeye” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, for
`
`its Complaint against Lenovo (United States), Inc. (“Lenovo” or “Defendant”), and demanding
`
`trial by jury, hereby alleges as follows:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a patent infringement action to end Defendant’s unauthorized and
`
`infringing manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of methods and products
`
`incorporating Plaintiff’s patented inventions, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,135,342 (the “’342 Patent”) and
`
`8,879,987 (the “’987 Patent”). True and correct copies of the ’342 and ’987 Patents are attached
`
`hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Sockeye Licensing TX LLC is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Texas.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lenovo (United States), Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a place of business located
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
`
`at 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. Defendant can be served with process
`
`by serving its registered agent for service of process in the State of Texas, CT Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement which arises under the Patent Laws of
`
`the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and venue is proper in this
`
`Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b), (c), and 1400.
`
`IV.
`
`THE PATENTS
`
`6.
`
`The named inventor of the ’342 and ’987 Patents, Mr. Michael D. Harold,
`
`conceived of the inventions disclosed therein and has worked to commercialize them for several
`
`years. Among his goals (and later those of his company, Zamboola) was to provide hardware
`
`and software solutions for the mobile market to allow the interfacing of user information
`
`between devices in an enhanced way. He accordingly prototyped hardware solutions in the fall
`
`of 2009, initially developing on an Openmoko Neo, a Linux-based touch screen smartphone.
`
`7.
`
`In early 2010, Zamboola was formed to commercialize the inventions. Living in
`
`the Shreveport-Bossier area, Mr. Harold filed the Articles of Incorporation for Zamboola as a
`
`Louisiana LLC on February, 2010, and worked to develop branding and IP collateral necessary
`
`to raise venture capital. He and his partner brought on personnel to advance Zamboola’s
`
`objectives.
`
`8.
`
`Zamboola believes that in terms of security, identity, mobility and performance,
`
`the smartphone remains a strong platform for current and future personal and enterprise
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
` 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
`
`computing. Given the continued advances in mobile hardware and wireless broadband, an
`
`opportunity has arisen for the commercial implementation of container-based virtualization on
`
`smartphones, allowing distributed services and applications to run in concert with cloud
`
`computing services as an on-demand distributed computing environment using any combination
`
`of operating systems.
`
`9.
`
`The ’342 and ’987 Patents disclose a system, method and apparatus which permits
`
`the use of a wireless cell phone or other communications device as a connection,
`
`communications and control device able to connect a full-sized desktop monitor or other digital
`
`display device, keyboard, mouse, speakers, printer and other external devices to a wireless cell
`
`phone device using any combination of wireline or wireless connections from the desktop
`
`devices to the wireless cell phone device. The wireless cell phone device is used to create an
`
`Internet or other network connection capable of accessing any browser-based web site or
`
`browser-based software application commonly accessible to a standard desktop computer having
`
`an Internet connection.
`
`10.
`
`In accordance with the ’342 and ’987 Patents, once the connections between the
`
`desktop monitor, key board, mouse, speakers, printer and other components are established with
`
`the wireless cell phone device and the Internet connection is established with the wireless cell
`
`phone device, the user may access any browser-based web site or software application using the
`
`desktop monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, printer and other components. Access to Internet
`
`software, services and media includes all forms of browser-based desktop software, as well as
`
`digital movies, music and streaming video. ’342 Patent, Abstract.
`
`11.
`
`Sockeye has obtained all substantial rights and interest to the ’342 and ’987
`
`Patents, including all rights to recover for all past and future infringements thereof.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
` 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
`
`V.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ACTS
`
`12.
`
`Defendant manufactures, provides, sells, offers to sell, and/or distributes
`
`infringing systems and methods. Defendant provides Wi-Fi Alliance certified “Miracast”
`
`products to provide the infringing functionality. As set forth on the Wi-Fi Alliance’s website:
`
`Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast™ is a groundbreaking solution for seamlessly
`displaying multimedia between devices, without cables or a network connection.
`Users can do things like view pictures from a smartphone on a big screen
`television, share a laptop screen with the conference room projector in real-time,
`and watch live programs from a home cable box on a tablet. Miracast connections
`are formed using Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Wi-Fi Direct®, so access to a Wi-Fi®
`network is not needed – the ability to connect is inside Miracast-certified devices.
`
`Miracast is an industry-wide solution, so the technology works well across
`devices, regardless of brand. Connections are easy to set up and use since the
`devices choose the appropriate settings automatically. Miracast supports premium
`content—like Blu-ray feature films, live television shows and sports, or any other
`copy-protected premium content—allowing you to watch what you want, where
`you want.
`
`http://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-miracast.
`
`
`13.
`
`Defendant employs Miracast
`
`technology
`
`in
`
`its accused
`
`instrumentalities.
`
`Moreover, Defendant markets its accused instrumentalities as certified under that technology
`
`standard. A generally comprehensive list of Miracast-certified products provided by Defendant
`
`is publicly available at
`
`the
`
`following website: http://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-
`
`results?sort_by=default&sort_order=desc&capabilities=2&certifications=45.
`
`14.
`
`For example, Defendant commercializes the following Miracast products: Lenovo
`
`Wireless Display Adapter WD100 and Lenovo ThinkPad Wireless Display Adapter (0C52866).
`
`15.
`
`Defendant has had knowledge of the ’342 and ’987 Patents at least being served
`
`with this Complaint. With knowledge of the ’342 and ’987 Patents, Defendant intends infringing
`
`acts in accordance with the foregoing technology. It provides specifications and instructions for
`
`the installation and infringing operation of such systems to its customers, who directly infringe.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
` 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
`
`16.
`
`Furthermore, with knowledge of the’342 and ’987 Patents, Defendant provides
`
`related services, specifications, and instructions for the installation and infringing operation of
`
`such systems to the customers of its products, who directly infringe through the operation of
`
`those products.
`
`17. With knowledge of the’342 and ’987 Patents, Defendant has purposefully and
`
`voluntarily placed infringing products in the stream of commerce with the expectation that its
`
`products will be purchased by customers in the Eastern District of Texas, and advertised those
`
`products.
`
`18.
`
`Through its actions, Defendant has infringed the’342 and ’987 Patents, and
`
`Defendant has and actively induced others to infringe the’342 and ’987 Patents throughout the
`
`United States, including within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`19.
`
`Sockeye has been and will continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendant’s
`
`infringing acts unless and until enjoined.
`
`COUNT ONE
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 8,135,342
`
`Plaintiff Sockeye realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–19.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’342 Patent.
`
`Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’342 Patent by inducing the infringement
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`of the ’342 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Sockeye and will
`
`continue to do so unless and until enjoined.
`
`COUNT TWO
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 8,879,987
`
`Plaintiff Sockeye realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–19.
`24.
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
` 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’987 Patent.
`
`Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’987 Patent by inducing the infringement
`
`of the ’987 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Sockeye and will
`
`continue to do so unless and until enjoined.
`
`VI.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff Sockeye hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.
`
`VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sockeye respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Enter judgment that Defendant infringes one or more claims of the
`’342 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`Enter judgment that Defendant infringes one or more claims of the
`’987 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`Award Plaintiff Sockeye past and future damages together with
`prejudgment and post-judgment interest to compensate for the
`infringement by Defendant of the ’342 Patent and/or the ’987
`Patent in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284; and
`
`Award Plaintiff Sockeye such further and additional relief as is
`deemed appropriate by this Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Andrew G. DiNovo
`Andrew G. DiNovo
`Texas State Bar No. 00790594
`adinovo@dpelaw.com
`Adam G. Price
`Texas State Bar No. 24027750
`aprice@dpelaw.com
`Daniel L. Schmid
`Texas State Bar No. 24093118
`dschmid@dpelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01596-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stefanie T. Scott
`Texas State Bar No. 24061617
`sscott@dpelaw.com
`DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`Telephone: (512) 539-2626
`Telecopier: (512) 539-2627
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`SOCKEYE LICENSING TX, LLC
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
` 7