1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, LLC, ) 

an Illinois Limited Liability Company, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

 v. ) No. 1:11-cv-9143 

) 

 ) 

J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., ) 

a Delaware Corporation, ) 

 Defendant. ) (Jury Trial Demanded) 

 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC (“Helferich”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, complains against Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (“J.C. Penney”) as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the United States Patent 

Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101-376, including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that this is a civil action arising out of 

the patent laws of the United States of America. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts 

substantial and continuous business in the State of Illinois and in this District, including 

operating a store in the North Riverside Park Mall of Riverside, Illinois, and purposefully 

directing its infringing activities to residents of this State and District by causing infringing 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:181
2 

messages to be sent to residents of this State and District, as described more fully in the 

paragraphs hereafter. 

3. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because, 

among other reasons, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and has caused 

infringing messages to be sent to residents of this State and District. 

PLAINTIFF

4. Helferich is an Illinois limited liability company with a principal place of business 

at 70 W. Madison St., Three First National Plaza, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60602. Helferich is 

the exclusive licensee of thirty (30) U.S. patents, six (6) pending U.S. applications, and over a 

dozen related foreign patents and patent applications relating to mobile wireless communication 

devices and the provision of media and content to such devices (collectively the “Helferich 

Portfolio”). The Helferich Portfolio includes the patents and applications listed in Exhibit A. 

5. On November 16, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent 

Office”) issued Patent No. 7,835,757 entitled “System and Method for Delivering Information to 

a Transmitting and Receiving Device” (the “‘757 patent”). Helferich is the exclusive licensee of 

all right, title, and interest in the ‘757 patent. 

6. On March 3, 2009, the Patent Office issued Patent No. 7,499,716 entitled “System 

and Method for Delivering Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device” (the “‘716 

patent”). Helferich is the exclusive licensee of all right, title, and interest in the ‘716 patent. 

7. On October 9, 2007, the Patent Office issued Patent No. 7,280,838 entitled 

“Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively Retrieving Messages” (the “‘838 patent”). 

Helferich is the exclusive licensee of all right, title, and interest in the ‘838 patent. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:182
3 

8. On January 31, 2012, the Patent Office issued Patent No. 8,107,601 entitled 

“Wireless Messaging System” (the “‘601 patent”). Helferich is the exclusive licensee of all 

right, title, and interest in the ‘601 patent. 

9. On February 14, 2012, Patent Office issued Patent No. 8,116,741 entitled “System 

and Method for Delivering Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device” (the “‘741 

patent”). Helferich is the exclusive licensee of all right, title, and interest in the ‘741 patent. 

10. On March 13, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent 

Office”) issued Patent No. 8,134,450 entitled “Content Provision to Subscribers via Wireless 

Transmission” (the “‘450 patent”). Helferich is the exclusive licensee of all right, title, and 

interest in the ‘450 patent. 

11. The ‘757, ‘716, ‘838, ‘601, ‘741 and ‘450 patents variously and in general relate 

to systems and methods used by content providers to create, store, and cause delivery of 

electronic messages and related content to mobile phones. The content provider stores its 

content (such as news, coupons, specials, media, etc.) on an internet accessible website and 

creates a short description of the content (of the type intended for placement into an SMS or 

MMS message). The content provider also selects and inserts a unique identifier of the content, 

such as a URL “link” in the message. The content provider uses an interface with a notification 

system (such as various social media sites or messaging services) to disseminate its messages to 

its customers’, followers’ and fans’ mobile phones via SMS or MMS. Thereafter, the content 

provider receives a request for the content identified by the link and delivers the requested 

content to the user’s mobile phone. The patents also variously relate to providing or using: (1) 

shortened URLs received from a link shortening service; (2) URLs that identify dynamic content 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:183
4 

such as changing product prices, promotions, events, reviews, or comments; (3) information to 

inform the recipient of the identifier of the time that the content is available such “24 hour sale” 

information; (4) a request for a delivery confirmation of an MMS message; (5) error status 

information when retrieving content, and/or (6) MMS messages from which users can request—

and content providers receive—commands regarding the content such as commands to delete, 

reply to, or forward the content. 

12. On July 14, 2010, Helferich filed suit against the New York Times Company 

asserting infringement of the ‘757, ‘716, and ‘838 patents asserted herein. Approximately six 

months later (in late February 2011), the New York Times Company filed three ex parte 

reexaminations in the Patent Office, one for each of the ’757, ‘716, and ‘838 patents. Shortly 

thereafter, and after consideration of all of the art and arguments presented in the ex parte

reexaminations as well as three later-filed inter partes reexamination requests (discussed below), 

the Patent Office confirmed as patentable a total of 313 claims as a result of the ex parte

reexaminations of the ‘716, ‘757 and ‘838 patents. 

(a) With respect to the ‘716 patent, on December 13, 2011, the Patent Office 

issued a “Reexamination Certificate” concluding the reexamination and confirming as 

patentable 16 original claims, including claims 2, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 

43, 48, 49, 52, and 58; 53 claims with minor clarifying amendments, including claims 1, 

3-15, 17, 18, 21, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40-42, 44-47, 50, 51, 53-57, and 59-69; and 65 

new claims, including claims 70-134. 

(b) With respect to the ‘757 patent, on December 9, 2011, the Patent Office 

issued a “Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate” and confirmed as 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:184
5 

patentable 6 original claims, including claims 1, 6, 11, 18, 19, and 20; 14 claims with 

minor clarifying amendments (as agreed by the Examiner), including claims 2-5, 7-10, 

and 12-17; and 49 new claims, including claims 21-69. 

(c) With respect to the ‘838 patent, on February 6, 2012, the Patent Office issued 

a “Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate” and confirmed as patentable 76 

original claims, including claims 1-44 and 48-84; 20 claims with minor clarifying 

amendments, including claims 45-47 and 85-96; and 14 new claims including claims 97-

110. 

13. On September 6, 2011, after the Patent Office confirmed as patentable numerous 

infringed claims of Helferich’s patents and applications over the New York Times Company’s ex 

parte reexamination requests, the New York Times Company joined with several other 

companies and filed a second round of reexamination requests—this time filing inter partes

reexamination requests for each of the ‘757, ‘716, and ‘838 patents. On October 28, 2011, the 

Patent Office issued a non-appealable order denying the request for inter partes reexamination of 

the ‘838 patent in its entirety, stating repeatedly: “The references set forth in the request have 

been considered both alone and in combination. They fail to raise a [substantial new question] of 

patentability as to 9-20 of the ‘838 patent claims. Accordingly, the request for reexamination is 

denied.” On November 4, 2011, the Patent Office issued non-appealable orders similarly 

denying the requests for inter partes reexaminations of the ‘757 and ‘716 patents. 

14. During the same period, the Patent Office issued the ‘450, ‘741, and ‘601 patents 

after express consideration of the New York Times Company's ex parte and inter partes

reexamination requests, art, and arguments. As discussed below, the ‘450, ‘741, and ‘601 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:185
6 

patents include more than 50 additional claims that Helferich asserts are infringed by content 

providers, such as the Defendants. 

15. On December 25, 2011 and January 6, 2012, the New York Times Company and 

its defense group began filing a third round of reexamination requests (in this case, inter partes

requests) against Helferich Patent Nos. 7,155,241 (not asserted herein and not previously the 

subject of a reexamination request) and 7,499,716 (asserted herein and subject to two prior 

requests). On January 19, 2012, Helferich filed copies of these most recent requests (and the art 

and arguments discussed therein) with the ex parte reexamination Examiner of the ‘838 patent. 

Shortly thereafter, the ‘838 patent reexamination Examiner issued the Notice of Intent to Issue a 

Reexamination Certification for the ‘838 patent thereby confirming as patentable the claims of 

the ‘838 patent over the New York Times defense group’s third round reexamination art and 

arguments. Helferich believes the New York Times defense group intends to continue filing 

intentionally staggered requests for reexamination to hamper this litigation indefinitely.

 16. To date, over one hundred of the world’s most sophisticated companies have 

acquired licenses to the Helferich Portfolio. Licensees include: ABInBev (Anheuser Busch), 

Adidas/Reebok, ADT Securities, Advanced Publications (Condé Nast), Ally Bank, Amazon, 

American Eagle Outfitters, American Greetings, Apple, Carnival Cruise Lines, Coinstar, Dairy 

Queen, Dell, DexOne, DIRECTV, Disney, eBay, Epitaph Records, Genesco, Glu Mobile, GSI 

Commerce (owned by eBay), Hair Cuttery, Hewlett-Packard (and Palm), H&R Block, KGB, 

Macy’s, McDonald’s, MGM Resorts International, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, the National 

Football League, the National Hockey League, Newegg.com, PGA Tour, Qdoba Restaurants, 

Redbox, Research in Motion, Sears Holding Corporation, Shoptext, Starbucks, Steve Madden, 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:186
7 

Taco Bell, Walgreens, Walmart, Zuffa/UFC, ValueVision (d/b/a “ShopNBC”) and numerous 

other companies including those whose identities Helferich has agreed to keep confidential. 

DEFENDANT

17. Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in Plano, Texas. J.C. Penney sells apparel, home furnishings, and 

other retail items at over 1,100 department stores throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, 

including in Illinois and in this District. In addition, J.C. Penney sells its goods through jcp.com, 

one of the largest apparel and home furnishing sites on the Internet, to customers in the United 

States including customers in Chicago, Illinois. Moreover, J.C. Penney purposefully directs its 

infringing activities (described below) to residents of this State and District by causing infringing 

messages to be sent to residents of the State of Illinois and this District. 

18. Within the last six (6) years, J.C. Penney has created, initiated, and caused 

numerous infringing messages and identified content to be sent to its customers’ mobile phones 

via SMS or MMS messaging, including through various short-code and social media-based 

marketing efforts. For example, Defendant operates several social media sites, pages, and feeds 

(such as those maintained with Twitter, Facebook, and Google+) that are branded by J.C. Penney 

and promoted by J.C. Penney on its various websites, such as www.jcp.com and 

www.jcpenney.com. A few of J.C. Penney’s social media sites, pages, and feeds include: 

@jcpenney, @JCPenneyOptical, @jcpPRIDE, and @jcpportraits (as maintained with Twitter), 

and facebook.com/jcpenney (as maintained with Facebook). J.C. Penney drafts messages with 

links and submits them to these sites, pages, and feeds for dissemination to its customers, 

followers, and fans. J.C. Penney intentionally uses its various social media sites, pages, and 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:187
8 

feeds to create, post, and store messages and/or content intended for delivery to J.C. Penney 

customers, followers, and fans, with the ultimate goal of driving customers to purchase 

J.C. Penney merchandise. J.C. Penney also operates several short-code services, such as the 

“JCP Rewards” mobile service that it uses to similarly create, post, and store messages and/or 

content intended for delivery via SMS and/or MMS to J.C. Penney customers, followers, and 

fans, with the ultimate goal of driving customers to purchase J.C. Penney merchandise. 

19. By its own choice, J.C. Penney specifically ensures that the aforementioned 

messages include specific identifiers as described and covered by Helferich’s claims (such as a 

URL). In addition, some of Defendant’s messages include shortened URLs which rely on error 

status information to be used when requesting the content. Additionally, in many cases, the 

identified J.C. Penney content is changed between the time of the message and the time the 

content is requested, and/or is available for a limited time as indicated in the text of 

J.C. Penney’s messages. As a result of the above, it is J.C. Penney—and not the social media 

websites or short code services—that performs each and every element of the asserted claims. 

Moreover, it is J.C. Penney that obtains the benefit from the infringing messages by increasing 

its sales, brand awareness, and good will with resulting financial gain to J.C. Penney. 

 20. On or about March 8, 2010, Helferich gave written notice to Defendant of its 

infringement of the ‘716 and ‘838 patents. Thereafter, on or about January 12, 2011, Helferich 

advised Defendant of its infringement of the ‘757 patent (which issued after Helferich’s initial 

notice to J.C. Penney). Helferich also placed J.C. Penney on notice that U.S. Patent Application 

Nos. 11/598,202, 12/167,971, and 12/367,358 (now the ‘601, ‘741, and ‘450 patents) would 

likely be infringed once issued as patents. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:188
9 

21. For the past twenty-one months, J.C. Penney has continued to infringe Helferich’s 

patents. J.C. Penney remains unlicensed even in the face of the Patent Office both confirming 

existing claims and allowing new claims over express consideration of the art and arguments 

proffered by the New York Times Company and others now cooperating with the New York 

Times Company. More specifically: 

 (a) J.C. Penney Continued to Infringe the Patents After the Patent Office 

Confirmed the ‘757, ‘716, and ‘838 Patent Claims: As previously mentioned, the Patent 

Office confirmed as patentable numerous infringed claims in all three of the ex parte

reexamination proceedings over express consideration of the New York Times 

Company’s invalidity arguments, including many of the claims asserted to be infringed in 

this Complaint. Notwithstanding the Patent Office confirming many of the claims 

asserted in this Complaint, J.C. Penney remained unlicensed and continued to infringe 

Helferich's patents. 

 (b) J.C. Penney Continued to Infringe the Patents After the Patent Office 

Denied Outright All Three Inter Partes Reexaminations: The Patent Office issued nonappealable orders fully denying all three of the New York Times Company’s (and the 

defense group’s) requests for inter partes reexamination of the ‘757, ‘716, and ‘838 

patents on October 28, 2011 and November 4, 2011, respectively. Notwithstanding the 

outright denial of all three inter partes reexamination requests, J.C. Penney remained 

unlicensed and continued to infringe Helferich's patents. 

(c) J.C. Penney Continued to Infringe the Patents After the Patent Office 

Issued Helferich Several New Patents: As discussed above, the Patent Office has allowed 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:189
10 

and issued Helferich several new patents over express consideration of the ex parte and 

first inter partes reexamination requests (including all of the art and arguments proffered 

by New York Times and its defense group members in those requests). Notwithstanding, 

J.C. Penney remained unlicensed and continued to infringe Helferich's patents. 

COUNT I

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,835,757) 

22. Helferich incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

23. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has been 

and is currently infringing the ‘757 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other 

things, using and practicing methods that embody one or more of claims 1-13, and 15-39, 41-62 

and 64-69 of the ‘757 patent. As mentioned previously, the Patent Office has issued a 

Reexamination Certificate confirming patentability of these claims in connection with the New 

York Times Company’s ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests. 

24. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that J.C. Penney infringes 

the ‘757 patent in connection with at least the product offerings and services described in 

Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. 

 25. In the alternative, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

Defendant has actively induced and is currently inducing the infringement of the ‘757 patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or has contributed to and is currently contributing to the 

infringement of the ‘757 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because numerous messages of 

the type described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, sent to its subscribers’ 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:190
11 

mobile devices. 

 26. More specifically, J.C. Penney has been on notice of its infringement of the ‘757 

patent since at least January of 2011, and since that time Defendant has offered at least some of 

the product offerings and services described in Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. Helferich is 

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that if it is not Defendant that creates and causes the 

infringing messages and content to be delivered as alleged in Paragraphs 18 and 19, then 

Defendant has actively induced or contributed to, and is currently actively inducing or 

contributing to the actions of third parties to create and cause such messages and content to be 

sent on its behalf, and knew or should have known that its actions would cause actual 

infringement of the ‘757 patent. 

27. In addition, with J.C. Penney being on notice of infringement of the ‘757 patent 

since January of 2011, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s 

infringement of the ‘757 patent has been and continues to be willful. 

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Helferich has suffered 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

Helferich has also been damaged and, until an injunction issues, will continue to be damaged in 

an amount yet to be determined. 

COUNT II

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,499,716) 

29. Helferich incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:191
12 

30. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has been 

and is currently infringing the ‘716 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other 

things, using and practicing methods that embody one or more of at least claims 15, 17, 18, 21, 

22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 

100, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 of the ‘716 patent. As mentioned previously, the Patent Office 

has issued a Reexamination Certificate confirming all of these claims in connection with the 

New York Times Company’s ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests. 

31. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. Penney infringes 

the ‘716 patent in connection with at least the product offerings and services described in 

Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. 

 32. In the alternative, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

Defendant has actively induced and is currently inducing the infringement of the ‘716 patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or has contributed to and is currently contributing to the 

infringement of the ‘716 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because numerous messages of 

the type described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, sent to its subscribers’ 

mobile devices. 

 33. More specifically, J.C. Penney has been on notice of its infringement of the ‘716 

patent since March of 2010, and since that time Defendant has offered at least some of the 

product offerings and services described in Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. Helferich is informed 

and believes, and thereon alleges, that if it is not Defendant that creates and causes the infringing 

messages and content to be sent as alleged in Paragraphs 18 and 19, then Defendant has actively 

induced or contributed to, and is currently actively inducing or contributing to the actions of third 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:192
13 

parties to create and cause such messages and content to be sent on its behalf, and knew or 

should have known that its actions would cause actual infringement of the ‘716 patent. 

34. In addition, with J.C. Penney being on notice of infringement of the ‘716 patent 

since at least March of 2010, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

Defendant’s infringement of the ‘716 patent has been and continues to be willful. 

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Helferich has suffered 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

Helferich has also been damaged and, until an injunction issues, will continue to be damaged in 

an amount yet to be determined. 

COUNT III

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,280,838) 

36. Helferich incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

37. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has been 

and is currently infringing the ‘838 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other 

things, using and practicing methods that embody one or more of at least claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 

16, 18, 19, 20, 97-101, and 105-110 of the ‘838 patent . As mentioned previously, the Patent 

Office has issued a Reexamination Certificate confirming patentability all of these claims in 

connection with the New York Times Company’s ex parte and inter partes reexamination 

requests. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:193
14 

38. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. Penney infringes 

the ‘838 patent in connection with at least the product offerings and services described in 

Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. 

 39. In the alternative, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

Defendant has actively induced and is currently inducing the infringement of the ‘838 patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or has contributed to and is currently contributing to the 

infringement of the ‘838 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because numerous messages of 

the type described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, sent to its subscribers’ 

mobile devices. 

 40. More specifically, J.C. Penney has been on notice of its infringement of the ‘838 

patent since at least March of 2010, and since that time Defendant has offered at least some of 

the product offerings and services described in Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. Helferich is 

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that if it is not Defendant that creates and causes the 

infringing messages to be sent as alleged in Paragraphs 18 and 19, then Defendant has actively 

induced or contributed to, and is currently actively inducing or contributing to the actions of third 

parties to create and cause such messages and content to be sent on its behalf, and knew or 

should have known that its actions would cause actual infringement of the ‘838 patent. 

41. In addition, with J.C. Penney being on notice of infringement of the ‘838 patent 

since at least March of 2010, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that 

Defendant’s infringement of the ‘838 patent has been and continues to be willful. 

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Helferich has suffered 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:194
15 

Helferich has also been damaged and, until an injunction issues, will continue to be damaged in 

an amount yet to be determined. 

COUNT IV

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,107,601) 

43. Helferich incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

44. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. Penney has been 

and is currently infringing the ‘601 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other 

things, using and practicing methods that embody one or more of claims 1, 3, 4, 9-11, 16, and 17 

of the ‘601 patent. 

45. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that J.C. Penney infringes 

the ‘601 patent in connection with at least the product offerings and services described in 

Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. 

 46. In the alternative, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

J.C. Penney has actively induced and are currently inducing the infringement of the ‘601 patent 

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or has contributed to and is currently contributing to the 

infringement of the ‘601 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because numerous SMS 

notifications of the type described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, sent to 

its subscribers’ mobile devices. 

 47. More specifically, J.C. Penney has been on notice of its infringement of the ‘601 

patent since at least January 31, 2012, the issue date of the ‘601 patent, and since that time 

numerous infringing SMS messages as described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:195
16 

continue to be, sent to J.C. Penney’s subscribers along with links to J.C. Penney’s content. 

Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that if it is not J.C. Penney causing the 

infringing messages to be sent as alleged in Paragraphs 18 and 19, then J.C. Penney has actively 

induced or contributed to, and is currently actively inducing or contributing to, the actions of 

third parties to cause such infringing messages to be sent on its behalf, and knew or should have 

known that its actions would cause actual infringement of the ‘601 Patent. 

48. In addition, with J.C. Penney being on notice of infringement of the ‘601 patent 

since at least January 31, 2012, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. 

Penney’s infringement of the ‘601 patent has been and continues to be willful. 

49. As a direct and proximate result of J.C. Penney’s conduct, Helferich has suffered 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

Helferich has also been damaged and, until an injunction issues, will continue to be damaged in 

an amount yet to be determined. 

COUNT V

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,116,741) 

50. Helferich incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

51. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. Penney has been 

and is currently infringing the ‘741 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other 

things, using and practicing methods that embody one or more of claims 1-9, 11-18, 20, 21, 23, 

24, 26, and 27 of the ‘741 patent. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:196
17 

52. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that J.C. Penney infringes 

the ‘741 patent in connection with at least the product offerings and services described in 

Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. 

 53. In the alternative, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

J.C. Penney has actively induced and are currently inducing the infringement of the ‘741 patent 

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or has contributed to and is currently contributing to the 

infringement of the ‘741 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because numerous SMS 

notifications of the type described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, sent to 

its subscribers’ mobile devices. 

 54. More specifically, J.C. Penney has been on notice of its infringement of the ‘741 

patent since at least February 14, 2012, the issue date of the ‘741 patent, and since that time 

numerous infringing SMS messages as described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and 

continue to be, sent to J.C. Penney’s subscribers along with links to J.C. Penney’s content. 

Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that if it is not J.C. Penney causing the 

infringing messages to be sent as alleged in Paragraphs 18 and 19, then J.C. Penney has actively 

induced or contributed to, and is currently actively inducing or contributing to, the actions of 

third parties to cause such infringing messages to be sent on its behalf, and knew or should have 

known that its actions would cause actual infringement of the ‘741 Patent. 

55. In addition, with J.C. Penney being on notice of infringement of the ‘741 patent 

since at least February 14, 2012, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

J.C. Penney’s infringement of the ‘741 patent has been and continues to be willful. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:197
18 

56. As a direct and proximate result of J.C. Penney’s conduct, Helferich has suffered 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

Helferich has also been damaged and, until an injunction issues, will continue to be damaged in 

an amount yet to be determined. 

COUNT VI

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,134,450) 

57. Helferich incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

58. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. Penney has been 

and is currently infringing the ‘450 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other 

things, using and practicing methods that embody one or more of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 13-15, 17-23, 

and 27-28 of the ‘450 patent. 

59. Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that J.C. Penney infringes 

the ‘450 patent in connection with at least the product offerings and services described in 

Paragraphs 18 and 19, above. 

 60. In the alternative, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

J.C. Penney has actively induced and are currently inducing the infringement of the ‘450 patent 

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or has contributed to and is currently contributing to the 

infringement of the ‘450 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because numerous SMS 

notifications of the type described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, sent to 

its subscribers’ mobile devices. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:198
19 

 61. More specifically, J.C. Penney has been on notice of its infringement of the ‘450 

patent since at least the issuance of the patent on March 13, 2012, and since that time numerous 

infringing SMS messages as described in Paragraphs 18 and 19 have been, and continue to be, 

sent to J.C. Penney’s subscribers along with links to J.C. Penney’s content. Helferich is 

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that if it is not J.C. Penney causing the infringing 

messages to be sent as alleged in Paragraphs 18 and 19, then J.C. Penney has actively induced or 

contributed to, and is currently actively inducing or contributing to, the actions of third parties to 

cause such infringing messages to be sent on its behalf, and knew or should have known that its 

actions would cause actual infringement of the ‘450 Patent. 

62. In addition, with J.C. Penney being on notice of infringement of the ‘450 patent 

since at least March 13, 2012, Helferich is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that J.C. 

Penney’s infringement of the ‘450 patent has been and continues to be willful. 

63. As a direct and proximate result of J.C. Penney’s conduct, Helferich has suffered 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

Helferich has also been damaged and, until an injunction issues, will continue to be damaged in 

an amount yet to be determined. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, prays for: 

 (a) Judgment that Defendant has infringed, actively induced others to infringe, or 

contributed to the infringement by others of one or more of the claims of the ‘757, ‘716, ‘838, 

‘601, ‘741, and ‘450 patents; 

 (b) A permanent injunction to be issued enjoining and restraining Defendant and its 

respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:199
20 

assigns, and those in active concert and participation with them, and each of them, from making, 

using, selling, offering for sale, or importing any products, systems or methods which fall within 

the scope of one or more of the claims of the ‘757, ‘716, ‘838, ‘601, ‘741, and ‘450 patents and 

from inducing or contributing to infringement of any such claims by others; 

 (c) An award of damages against Defendant adequate to compensate Helferich for 

past infringement of one or more of the claims of the ‘757, ‘716, ‘838, ‘601, ‘741, and ‘450 

patents together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, such damages to be trebled because 

of the willful and deliberate character of the infringement; 

 (d) Judgment that this case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and that Helferich 

is entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in the prosecution of this action; and 

(e) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of March, 2012. 

 By:/s/ Victoria Curtin

Victoria Curtin (NDIL ID #010897) 

Victoria Gruver Curtin, P.L.C. 

14555 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 160 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 

Tel.: (480) 998-3547 

Fax:(480)596-7956 

Steven G. Lisa (Ill. State Bar # 6187348) 

Timothy Sperling (Ill. State Bar # 6283854) 

Jon E. Kappes (Ill. State Bar # 6291678) 

Law Offices of Steven G. Lisa, Ltd. 

55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3210 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Tel. & Fax: (312) 752-4357 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:200
21 

Gerald D. Hosier (Ill. State Bar # 7059) 

Law Offices Of Gerald D. Hosier, Ltd. 

P.O. Box 12354 

Aspen, CO 81612 

Tel: (970) 920- 3475 

Off: (970) 920-3475 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:201
22 

Exhibit A

1. U.S. Patent No. 8,134,450, titled “Content Provision to Subscribers via Wireless 

Transmission,” issued March 13, 2012. 

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,116,743, titled “Systems and Methods for Downloading Information to a 

Mobile Device,” issued February 14, 2012. 

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,116,741, titled “System and Method for Delivering Information to a 

Transmitting and Receiving Device,” issued February 14, 2012. 

4. U.S. Patent No. 8,107,601, titled “Wireless Messaging System,” issued January 31, 2012. 

5. U.S. Patent No. 8,099,046, titled “Method for Integrating Audio and Visual Messaging 

6. U.S. Patent No. 7,957,695, titled “Method for Integrating Audio And Visual Messaging;” 

issued June 7, 2011. 

7. U.S. Patent No. 7,843,314, titled “Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages;” issued November 30, 2010. 

8. U.S. Patent No. 7,835,757 titled “System and Method for Delivering Information to a 

Transmitting and Receiving Device,” issued November 16, 2010. 

9. U.S. Patent No. 7,627,305, titled “Systems and Methods for Adding Information to a 

Directory Stored in a Mobile Device” issued December 1, 2009. 

10. U.S. Patent No. 7,499,716, titled "System and Method for Delivering Information to a 

Transmitting and Receiving Device" issued March 3, 2009. 

11. U.S. Patent No. 7,403,787, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages" issued July 22, 2008. 

12. U.S. Patent No. 7,376,432, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages" issued May 20, 2008. 

13. U.S. Patent No. 7,280,838, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages," issued October 9, 2007. 

14. U.S. Patent No. 7,277,716, titled "Systems and Methods for Delivering Information to a 

Communication Device," issued October 2, 2007. 

15. U.S. Patent No. 7,242,951, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages," issued July 10, 2007. 

16. U.S. Patent No. 7,155,241, titled "Systems and Methods for Enabling a User of a 

Communication Device to Manage Remote Information," issued December 26, 2006. 

17. U.S. Patent No. 7,146,157, titled "Systems and Methods for Downloading Audio Information 

to a Mobile Device," issued December 5, 2006. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:202
23 

18. U.S. Patent No. 7,039,428, titled "System and Method for Delivering Information to a 

Transmitting and Receiving Device," issued May 2, 2006. 

19. U.S. Patent No. 7,003,304, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages," issued February 21, 2006. 

20. U.S. Patent No. 6,983,138, titled "User Interface for Message Access," issued January 3, 

2006. 

21. U.S. Patent No. 6,826,407, titled "System and Method for Integrating Audio and Visual 

Messaging," issued November 30, 2004. 

22. U.S. Patent No. 6,696,921, titled "Transmitting and Receiving Devices and Methods for 

Transmitting Data to and Receiving Data from a Communications System," issued February 

24, 2004. 

23. U.S. Patent No. 6,636,733, titled "Wireless Messaging Method," issued October 21, 2003. 

24. U.S. Patent No. 6,462,646, titled "Transmitting and Receiving Devices and Methods for 

Transmitting Data to and Receiving Data from a Communication System," issued October 8, 

2002. 

25. U.S. Patent No. 6,459,360, titled "Networks, Communication Systems, Transmitting and 

Receiving Devices and Methods for Transmitting, Receiving, and Erasing Stored 

Information," issued October 1, 2002. 

26. U.S. Patent No. 6,259,892, titled "Pager Transceivers and Methods for Performing Action on 

Information at Desired Times," issued July 10, 2001. 

27. U.S. Patent No. 6,253,061, titled "Systems and Methods for Delivering Information to a 

Transmitting and Receiving Device," issued June 26, 2001. 

28. U.S. Patent No. 6,233,430, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively 

Retrieving Messages," issued May 15, 2001. 

29. U.S. Patent No. 6,097,941, titled "User Interface for Voice Message Access," issued August 

1, 2000. 

30. U.S. Patent No. 6,087,956, titled "Paging Transceivers and Methods for Selectively Erasing 

Information," issued July 11, 2000. 

31. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/210, 223, titled “Wireless Messaging Systems and Methods.” 

32. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/109,437, titled “System and Method for Delivering 

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device.” 

33. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/109,389, titled “System and Method for Delivering 

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device.” 

34. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/973,722, titled “Wireless Messaging Systems and Methods.” 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:203
24 

35. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/580,189, titled “System and Method for Delivering 

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device.” 

36. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/267,436, titled "Wireless Messaging System." 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:204
25 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I Laura Keller certify that on March 14, 2012, I personally caused to be served, by 

electronic filing, a true and correct copy of “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

PATENT INFRINGEMENT” to: 

Daniel L. Farris 

daniel.farris@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue 

david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Holland & Knight LLP 

131 S. Dearborn Street, 30th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60603 

/s/ Laura Keller 

Laura Keller 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:205