1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MOUNTECH IP LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HMD AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT

Now comes Plaintiff, Mountech IP LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Mountech”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, and respectfully alleges, states, and prays as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 

Title 35 United States Code (“U.S.C.”), to prevent and enjoin Defendant HMD America, Inc.

(hereinafter “Defendant”), from infringing and profiting, in an illegal and unauthorized manner 

and without authorization and/or consent from Plaintiff, U.S. Patent No. 7,991,784 (the “‘784

Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,311,805 (the “‘805 Patent,” and together with the ‘784 Patent, the 

“Patents-in-Suit”), which are attached respectively as Exhibits A and B and incorporated herein 

by reference, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271, and to recover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. 

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 

6001 W. Parmer Lane, Suite 370-1079, Austin, Texas 78727-3908.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation incorporated in and under 

the laws of Florida, having a principal place of business at 1200 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 16
2

33178. Upon information and belief, Defendant may be served with process c/o Incorp Services, 

Inc., 17888 67th Court North, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470. 

4. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant 

is in the business of designing and/or manufacturing smartphones – that is, mobile telephones 

capable of performing many functions of a computer and having a touchscreen interface, internet 

access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded applications – and offering the 

same for sale to consumers under Nokia® and other brands, among other things. Defendant 

derives a portion of its revenue from sales and distribution via electronic transactions conducted 

on and using at least, but not limited to, its internet website located at

www.nokia.com/phones/en_us/nokia-3-1, and its incorporated and/or related systems 

(individually and collectively, the “Defendant Website”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 

on that basis alleges, that, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant has done and continues to do 

business in this judicial district, including, but not limited to, providing products/services to 

customers located in this judicial district by way of the Defendant Website.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the Patent Act of the United 

States, 35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.

6. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§1331 and 1338(a). 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant by virtue of its systematic and 

continuous contacts with this jurisdiction and its residence in this District, as well as because the 

injury to Plaintiff and the cause of action alleged by Plaintiff arose in this District, as alleged 

herein.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 2 of 16
3

8. Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction 

pursuant to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) committing at least a portion of the 

infringements alleged herein in this judicial District; (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, 

engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods 

and services provided to individuals in this forum state and in this judicial District; and (iii) 

incorporating in this District.

9. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), because 

Defendant maintains its principal place of business in this District and at least some of the 

infringing conduct occurred in this District.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. On August 2, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 

duly and legally issued the ‘784 Patent, entitled “Automatic Dynamic Contextual Data Entry 

Completion System,” after a full and fair examination. The ‘784 Patent is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten. 

11. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘784 Patent, having received all right, title and interest 

in and to the ‘784 Patent from the previous assignee of record. Plaintiff possesses all rights of 

recovery under the ‘784 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.

12. To the extent required, Plaintiff has complied with all marking requirements under 

35 U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the ‘784 Patent.

13. Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent recites a method – performed in a character entry system, 

so that incomplete character strings input by a user interacting with the character entry system, that 

are part of a series of input character strings which establish a context for the incomplete input 

character string, can be completed by the selection of a presented character string using an input 

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 3 of 16
4

device connected to the character entry system – comprising computing contextual associations 

between multiple character strings based upon occurrence of character strings relative to each other 

in documents present in the character entry system, wherein the computing contextual associations 

comprises: (i) identifying pertinent documents present in the character entry system; (ii) creating 

a list of character strings contained within documents in the character entry system; and (iii) 

creating an interrelationship between distinct character strings in the list using their occurrence in 

the documents of the character entry system; in response to the user inputting a specified threshold 

of individual characters using the input device, identifying at least one selectable character string 

from among the character strings used in creating the computed contextual associations that can 

complete the incomplete input character string in context; providing the identified at least one 

selectable character string to a user in a manner suitable for selection by the user using the input 

device; and receiving, in the system, the user's selection and completing the incomplete input 

character string based upon the selection. See Ex. A, at Col. 18: 14 - 45.

14. As identified in the ‘784 Patent, prior art methods to provide automated word 

completion within incomplete character strings input by a digital device user had technological 

faults and did not provide for a method that is automatic, dynamic, and context-based. See Ex. A 

at Col. 1 & 2.

15. Based on the foregoing assertions, Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent provides non-abstract 

ideas, unconventional inventive concepts, and is a practical application of the invention as 

described in the specifications. 

16. In the alternative and at the very least, whether Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent provides

a non-abstract idea, unconventional inventive concepts, or a practical application thereof as 

described in the specification is a genuine issue of material fact that must survive the pleading 

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 4 of 16
5

stage. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 

2018) (reversing grant of motion to dismiss).

17. Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in 

at least one claim of the ‘784 Patent. More particularly, Defendant commercializes, inter alia, 

methods that perform all the steps recited in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent. Specifically, Defendant 

makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports a method that encompasses that covered by Claim 1 

of the ‘784 Patent.

18. On November 13, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 

duly and legally issued the ‘805 Patent, entitled “Automatic Dynamic Contextual Data Entry 

Completion System,” after a full and fair examination. The ‘805 Patent is attached hereto as 

Exhibit B and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten. 

19. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘805 Patent, having received all right, title and interest 

in and to the ‘805 Patent from the previous assignee of record. Plaintiff possesses all rights of 

recovery under the ‘805 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.

20. To the extent required, Plaintiff has complied with all marking requirements under 

35 U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the ‘805 Patent.

21. The Abstract of the ‘805 Patent teaches a method, performed in a character entry 

system, for interrelating character strings so that an incomplete input character string can be 

completed by selection of a presented character string involving computing relationship scores for 

individual character strings in the system from documents present in the character entry system, in 

response to inputting a string of individual characters that exceeds a specific threshold, identifying 

at least one selectable character string from among contextual associations that can complete the 

input character string in context, based upon an overall ranking score computed as a function of at 

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 5 of 16
6

least two other scores, and providing the identified at least one selectable character string to a user 

for selection. See Ex. B at Abstract.

22. As identified in the ‘805 Patent, prior art methods to provide automated word 

completion within incomplete character strings input by a digital device user had technological 

faults and did not provide for a method that is automatic, dynamic, and context-based. See Ex. B

at Col. 1 & 2.

23. Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent recites a method, performed in a character entry system, 

for interrelating character strings so that an incomplete input character string can be completed by 

selection of a presented character string, the method comprising: computing relationship scores 

for individual character strings in the system from documents stored in memory of the character 

entry system, the relationship scores consisting of a function consisting of co-occurrence scores 

between pairs of distinct character strings stored in a single matrix created from the character 

strings in the stored documents; in response to inputting of a string of individual characters that 

exceeds a specified threshold, identifying at least one selectable character string from among 

contextual associations that can complete the input character string in context based upon an 

overall ranking score computed as a function of a relationship score and at least one other score; 

and providing the identified at least one selectable character string to a user for selection. See Ex. 

B at Col. 19: 24-43.

24. The method of Claim 2 of the ‘805 Patent recites the method of Claim 1, wherein 

each relationship score represents the contextual association between an individual character string 

and another character string based upon co-occurrence of character strings relative to each other. 

See Ex. B at Col. 19: 44-47.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 6 of 16
7

25. Based on the foregoing assertions, Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent provide nonabstract ideas, unconventional inventive concepts, and are practical applications of the invention

as described in the specifications. 

26. In the alternative and at the very least, whether Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent

provide a non-abstract idea, unconventional inventive concepts, or practical applications thereof

as described in the specification is a genuine issue of material fact that must survive the pleading 

stage. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 

2018) (reversing grant of motion to dismiss).

27. Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in 

at least one claim of the ‘805 Patent. More particularly, Defendant commercializes, inter alia, 

methods that perform all the steps recited in Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent. Specifically, 

Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports a method that encompasses that covered 

by Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent.

DEFENDANT’S PRODUCT(S)

28. Defendant offers products, such as the Nokia 3.1 (the “Accused Product”), that

practice a method, performed in a character entry system (e.g., the predictive text system of the 

Accused Product), so that incomplete input character strings input by a user interacting with the 

character entry system, which are part of a series of input character strings which establish a 

context for the incomplete input character string (e.g., previous appearance of charter strings in 

adjacent fashion), can be completed by a selection of a presented character string (e.g., selection 

of suggested selectable words) using an input device (e.g., the touchscreen of the Accused Product) 

connected to the character entry system.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 7 of 16
8

29. A non-limiting and exemplary claim chart comparing the Accused Product to Claim 

1 of the ‘784 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten.

30. The Accused Product practices computing contextual associations between 

multiple character strings based upon occurrence of character strings relative to each other (e.g., 

number of adjacent co-occurrence of pairs of various character strings) in documents (e.g., notes, 

message, email, etc.) present in the character entry system. See Ex. C.

31. In the Accused Product, as in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent, various character strings 

are associated with each other based on their mutual co-occurrence with adjacency. For instance, 

when two paragraphs, hereinafter referred to as the “Combined Essay,” containing the phrases 

“James maxwell”, “James Maxima”, and "James Michener" are typed, and therefore input into the 

predictive text system of the Accused Product, the predictive text system of the Accused Product, 

based on the frequency of mutual co-occurrence of the string “James” with “maxwell”, “Maxima”, 

and “Michener,” in the given order, starts providing selectable character strings when “James m” 

is typed. The two selectable character strings, among others, are “maxwell” and “Maxima.” See 

Ex. C. For the reliability of the demonstration, the Combined Essay is typed five times. The 

frequency of occurrence of “James Maxwell”, “James “Maxima”, and “James Michener” is 105, 

50, and 20 respectively calculated over the Combined Essay repeated for five times. See Ex. C. 

32. As shown in Exhibit C, since pairs of strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” 

adjacently appeared the most number of times (105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings 

with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by 

“Maxima”, since the number of adjunct appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50. See Ex. C.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 8 of 16
9

33. As in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent, the Accused Product practices identifying 

pertinent documents (e.g., stored notes or notes being composed) present in the character entry 

system (e.g., the predictive text system of the Accused Product). See Ex. C.

34. As in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent, the Accused Product practices creating a list of 

character strings contained within documents in the character entry system (e.g., the predictive text 

system of the Accused Product) and creating an interrelationship between distinct character strings 

(e.g., frequency of adjacent appearance of pairs of character strings) in the list using their 

occurrence in the documents of the character entry system (e.g., the predictive text system of the 

Accused Product). As shown in Exhibit C, various character strings are associated with each other 

based on their mutual co-occurrence with adjacency. For instance, when two paragraphs, 

hereinafter referred to as the “Combined Essay” and containing the phrases “James maxwell”, 

“James Maxima”, and "James Michener" are typed, and therefore input to the predictive text 

system of the Accused Product, the predictive text system of the Accused Product, based on the 

frequency of mutual co-occurrence of the string “James” with “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and 

“Michener”, in the given order, start providing selectable character strings when “James m” is 

typed. The two selectable character strings, among others, are “maxwell” and “Maxima.” For the 

reliability of the demonstration, the Combined Essay is typed five times. See Ex. C. The frequency 

of occurrence of “James Maxwell”, “James “Maxima”, and “James Michener” is 105, 50, and 20 

respectively calculated over the Combined Essay repeated for five times. For calculating mutual 

co-occurrences of pairs of character strings, the Accused Product must create a list of character 

strings contained in the documents (i.e., previously stored notes or notes being composed). See 

Ex. C.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 9 of 16
10

35. The Accused Product practices, in response to the user inputting a specific threshold 

(e.g., inputting a starting character of a word followed by the corresponding preceding word) of 

individual characters using the input device (e.g., the touchscreen of the Accused Product), 

identifying at least one selectable character string (e.g., predicting selectable words for user 

selection) from among the character strings used in creating the computed contextual associations 

that can complete the incomplete input character string in context. See Ex. C. Since pairs of strings, 

for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for the most number of times (105) in 

comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell” appears as 

a selectable option followed by “Maxima” – since the number of adjacent appearances of “James” 

with “Maxima” is 50 and is greater than the adjacent appearance of “James” with “Michener,” 

which stands at 20. See Ex. C. Exhibit C provides a Matrix depicting association of character string

“James”, with the string “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener.”

36. The Accused Product practices providing the identified at least one selectable 

character string (e.g., suggesting words for user selection) to a user in a manner suitable for 

selection by the user using the input device (e.g., the touchscreen of the Accused Product). As 

shown in Exhibit C, since pairs of strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appear 

for the most number of times (105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one 

of the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima”, since the number 

of adjacent appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and is greater than the adjacent 

appearance of “James” with “Michener,” which stands at 20. Shown in Exhibit C is a Matrix 

depicting association of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”, 

and “Michener.” See Ex. C.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 10 of 16
11

37. The Accused Product practices receiving the user's selection (e.g., selecting a 

suggested word by user) in the system and completing the incomplete input character string based 

upon the selection. See Ex. C.

38. The elements described in the preceding paragraphs are covered by at least Claim

1 of the ‘784 Patent. Thus, Defendant’s use of the Accused Product is enabled by the methods

described in the ‘784 Patent.

39. A non-limiting and exemplary claim chart comparing the Accused Product to 

Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein as if fully 

rewritten.

40. The Accused Product practices a method, performed in a character entry system 

(e.g., the predictive text system of the Accused Product), for interrelating character strings so that 

an incomplete input character string can be completed by selection of a presented character string 

(e.g., selection of suggested selectable words). See Ex. D.

41. As in Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices computing 

relationship scores for individual character strings in the system from documents (e.g., notes, email, etc.) stored in memory (e.g., memory of the Accused Product) of the character entry system 

(e.g., predictive text system of the Accused Product), the relationship scores consisting of a 

function consisting of co-occurrence scores between pairs of distinct character strings stored in a 

single matrix created from the character strings in the stored documents. As shown in Exhibit D, 

various character strings are associated with each other based on their mutual co-occurrence with 

adjacency. For instance, when two paragraphs, hereinafter referred to as the “Combined Essay” 

and containing the phrase “James maxwell”, “James Maxima”, and "James Michener" are typed, 

and therefore input to the predictive text system of the Accused Product, the predictive text system 

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 11 of 16
12

of the Accused Product, based on the frequency of mutual co-occurrence of the string “James” 

with “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener”, in the given order, starts providing selectable 

character strings when “James m” is typed. The two selectable character strings, among others, are 

“maxwell” and “Maxima.” For the reliability of the demonstration, the Combined Essay is typed 

five times. See Ex. D. The frequency of occurrence of “James Maxwell”, “James “Maxima”, and 

“James Michener” is 105, 50, and 20 respectively calculated over the Combined Essay repeated 

for five times. Since pairs of strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for 

the most number of times (105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of 

the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima”, since the number of 

adjunct appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50. See Ex. D. Shown in Exhibit D is a Matrix 

depicting association of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”, 

and “Michener.”

42. As in Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices a method, in 

response to inputting of a string of individual characters that exceeds a specified threshold (e.g., 

inputting a starting character of a word), of identifying at least one selectable character string (e.g., 

predicting selectable words for user selection) from among contextual associations that can 

complete the input character string in context based upon an overall ranking score computed as a 

function of a relationship score and at least one other score. As shown in Exhibit D, since pairs of 

strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for the most number of times

(105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell”

appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima” – since the number of adjacent appearances 

of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and is greater than the adjacent appearance of “James” with 

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 12 of 16
13

“Michener,” which stands at 20. See Ex. D. Shown in Exhibit D is a Matrix depicting association 

of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener.”

43. As in Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices providing the 

identified at least one selectable character string (e.g., suggesting words for user selection) to a 

user for selection (e.g., user can select a desired word). As shown in Exhibit D, since pairs of 

strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for the most number of times, 

105 to be precise, in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of the strings, 

“maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima”, since the number of adjacent 

appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and which is greater than the adjacent appearance 

of “James” with “Michener” which stands at 20. Shown in Exhibit D is a Matrix depicting 

association of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and 

“Michener.” See Ex. D.

44. As in Claim 2 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices a method such that 

each relationship score represents the contextual association between an individual character string 

and another character string based upon co-occurrence of character strings relative to each other. 

As shown in Exhibit D, since pairs of strings, for example, “James” and “maxwell” has adjacently 

appeared for the most number of times, 105 to be precise, in comparison to the other pairs of strings 

with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by 

“Maxima”, since the number of adjacent appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and which 

is greater than the adjacent appearance of “James” with “Michener” which stands at 20. Shown in 

Exhibit D is a Matrix depicting association of character string “James” with character strings 

“maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener.” See Ex. D.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 13 of 16
14

45. The elements described in the preceding paragraphs are covered by at least Claims 

1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent. Thus, Defendant’s use of the Accused Product is enabled by the methods 

described in the ‘805 Patent.

INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT

46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in 

the preceding paragraphs

47. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant is now, and has been directly infringing 

the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent.

48. Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the Patents-in-Suit at least as of 

the service of the present Complaint.

49. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one 

claim of the Patents-in-Suit by using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, the Accused

Product without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this 

Court. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, 

Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.

50. Defendant has induced others to infringe the Patents-in-Suit, by encouraging

infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its

encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement. 

51. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Plaintiff and is 

thus liable for infringement of the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

52. Defendant has committed these acts of infringement without license or 

authorization.

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 14 of 16
15

53. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, Plaintiff has suffered 

monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate 

for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs. 

54. Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing 

activities are enjoined by this Court. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any 

continuing and/or future infringement up until the date that Defendant is finally and permanently 

enjoined from further infringement.

55. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery 

progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction 

purposes by the claim charts that it provides with this Complaint. The claim charts depicted in 

Exhibits C and D are intended to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure and do not represent Plaintiff’s preliminary or final infringement 

contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

56. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any and all causes of action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 

a. That Defendant be adjudged to have directly infringed the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent, 

either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; 

b. An accounting of all infringing sales and damages including, but not limited to, those 

sales and damages not presented at trial;

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 15 of 16
16

c. That Defendant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliates, 

divisions, branches, parents, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, 

be permanently restrained and enjoined from directly infringing the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent; 

d. An award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284, sufficient to compensate Plaintiff 

for the Defendant’s past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date 

that Defendant is finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including 

compensatory damages; 

e. An assessment of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against 

Defendant, together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284;

f. That Defendant be directed to pay enhanced damages, including Plaintiff’s attorneys’ 

fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and

g. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and 

proper. 

Dated: July 31, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA

/s/ Howard L. Wernow

Howard L. Wernow B.C.S. 

Florida Bar No. 107560 

Aegis Tower – Suite 1100

4940 Munson Street NW 

Canton, OH 44718 

Phone: 330-244-1174 

Fax: 330-244-1173 

Email: howard.wernow@sswip.com

Board Certified in Intellectual Property 

Law By the Florida Bar

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 16 of 16