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 COMPANY, INC., ) 

a Delaware Corporation, ) 

 Defendant. ) (Jury Trial Demanded) 

 

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

counsel, complains against Defendant J.C. Penney Company, 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 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1
2 

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

causing infringing 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. HPL 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. HPL is the exclusive licensee of twenty-five (25) U.S. patents, eleven (11) 

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 “HPL Portfolio”). The HPL 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”). 

HPL is the exclusive licensee of all right, title, and interest in the ‘757 patent. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2
3 

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

8. The ‘757, ‘716, and ‘838 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 such as changing product 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3
4 

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”; (4) a request 

for a delivery confirmation of an MMS message; and/or (5) MMS messages from which 

users can request—and content providers receive—commands regarding the content such 

as to delete, reply to, or forward the content. 

9. On July 14, 2010, HPL 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 203 claims as a result of the ex parte reexaminations of the ‘716 and 

‘757 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. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4
5 

(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 

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, the Patent Office has issued a NonFinal Office Action to which HPL recently responded. HPL likewise expects 

additional claims to be confirmed in the ‘838 reexamination. 

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

numerous infringed claims of HPL’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 

the New York Times Company along with several other companies filed inter partes

reexamination requests for each of the ‘757, ‘716, and ‘838 patents. 

(a) 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 that “None of the above cited art [referring to the references 

newly asserted in the inter partes requests] provides any new technological 

teachings that were not present in the art cited in the previous reexamination.” 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5
6 

(b) On November 4, 2011, the Patent Office issued non-appealable orders 

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

patents for similar reasons. 

(c) Prior to the Patent Office issuing a “Reexamination Certificate” for each 

of the ‘716 and ‘757 patents, HPL filed IDSs in the above referenced ex parte

reexaminations citing the art and arguments presented in the inter partes

reexamination requests. Consequently, in confirming the claims in the ex parte

reexamination requests, the Patent Office also considered the art and arguments 

presented in the inter partes reexamination requests. 

Thus, in less than nine months, the Patent Office disposed of 5 of 6 reexamination 

requests (including denying outright all three inter partes reexaminations) filed by the 

New York Times Company and its defense group against HPL’s patents. 

11. Additionally, during the same period, the Patent Office allowed and reallowed three related pending patent applications (Application Nos. 11/598,202; 

12/167,971; and 12/367,358) after express consideration of the New York Times 

Company's ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests, art, and arguments. These 

allowed applications include at least 51 additional claims that HPL believes are infringed 

by content providers, such as the Defendant. 

12. To date, ninety-two (92) of the world’s most sophisticated companies have 

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

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6
7 

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

Amazon, American Eagle Outfitters, American Greetings, Apple, Carnival Cruise Lines, 

Coinstar, Dairy Queen, Dell, 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, Taco Bell, Walgreens, 

Zuffa/UFC and numerous other companies including those whose identities HPL has 

agreed to keep confidential. 

DEFENDANT

13. 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. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7
8 

14. 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 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. 

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

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

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8
9 

a URL or shortened link). 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. 

 16. On or about March 8, 2010, HPL gave written notice to Defendant of its 

infringement of the ‘716, and ‘838 patents. The notice letter provided Defendant with a 

description of the patent claims as well as infringement charts demonstrating 

infringement of the claims. Thereafter, on or about January 12, 2011, HPL advised 

Defendant of its infringement of the ‘757 patent (which issued after HPL’s initial notice 

letter). 

17. For the past twenty-one months, J.C. Penney has continued to infringe 

HPL’s patents while repeatedly refusing to accept a license on HPL’s highly favorable 

settlement licensing terms. J.C. Penney refused a license 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: 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9
10 

 (a) J.C. Penney Refused a License and Continued to Infringe the Patents 

After the New York Times Filed its Ex Parte Reexaminations: As discussed 

above, in late February 2011, the New York Times Company filed its three ex 

parte reexaminations on the ‘757, ‘716, ‘838 patents. HPL’s May 24, 2011 letter 

advised Defendant of the reexaminations and provided Defendant with analysis 

explaining why HPL believed a large number of claims were likely to be 

confirmed. Notwithstanding, J.C. Penney refused a license on HPL’s highly 

favorable settlement licensing terms and continued to infringe HPL' patents. 

(b) J.C. Penney Refused a License and Continued to Infringe the Patents 

After the Patent Office Confirmed Claims: As previously mentioned, the Patent 

Office confirmed as patentable numerous infringed claims in two of the pending 

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. Thereafter, on November 9, 2011, HPL wrote a 

letter to Defendant advising it of HPL’s ongoing licensing, litigation, and patent 

prosecution successes, and again offered a license to Defendant on HPL’s highly 

favorable settlement licensing terms. Notwithstanding the Patent Office 

confirming many of the claims asserted in this Complaint, J.C. Penney continued 

to refuse a license and to infringe HPL's patents. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10
11 

 (c) J.C. Penney Refused a License and Continued to Infringe the Patents 

After the Patent Office Denied Outright All Three Inter Partes Reexaminations: 

The Patent Office issued non-appealable orders fully denying all three of the New 

York Times Company’s (and the defense group’s) requests for inter partes

reexamination on October 28, 2011 and November 4, 2011, respectively. 

Thereafter, on November 9, 2011, HPL promptly sent a letter to Defendant 

advising it of HPL’s ongoing licensing, litigation, and patent prosecution efforts, 

and again offering a license to Defendant on HPL’s highly favorable settlement 

licensing terms. Notwithstanding the outright denial of all three inter partes

reexamination requests, J.C. Penney continued to refuse a license and to infringe 

HPL's patents. 

(d) Defendant Refused a License and Continued to Infringe the Patents 

after the Patent Office Allowed Three Applications Over the Art and Arguments 

presented in the Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Requests: As noted 

above, HPL has three additional pending patent applications (Application Nos. 

11/598,202; 12/167,971; and 12/367,358) that were first allowed by the Patent 

Office after express consideration of the New York Times Company's ex parte

reexamination requests, art, and arguments, and then allowed again after express 

consideration of the inter partes reexamination requests. As a result, at least 51 

additional claims will issue that HPL believes to be infringed by Defendant. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11
12 

Notwithstanding the recent allowance of the ‘358, ‘971, and ‘202 applications, 

J.C. Penney continues to refuse a license and to infringe HPL’s patents. 

COUNT I

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

18. HPL incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

19. HPL 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 

15-20 of the ‘757 patent. Additionally, upon the Patent Office’s issuance of the 

forthcoming Reexamination Certificate regarding the ‘757 patent, Defendant likewise 

will be infringing one or more of claims 21-39, 41-62, and 64-69. As mentioned 

previously, all of these claims have been confirmed patentable by the Patent Office over 

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

20. HPL is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant infringes 

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

described in Paragraphs 14 and 15, above. 

 21. In the alternative, HPL 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) 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12
13 

because numerous messages of the type described in Paragraphs 14 and 15 have been, 

and continue to be, sent to its subscribers’ mobile devices. 

 22. 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 14 and 15, 

above. HPL 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 14 and 15, 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. 

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

patent since January of 2011, HPL is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 

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

24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, HPL has suffered 

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

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

in an amount yet to be determined. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13
14 

COUNT II

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

25. HPL incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

26. HPL 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. 

27. HPL is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant infringes 

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

described in Paragraphs 14 and 15, above. 

 28. In the alternative, HPL 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 Paragraph 14 and 15 have been, and 

continue to be, sent to its subscribers’ mobile devices. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14
15 

 29. 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 14 and 15, above. HPL 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 14 and 15, 

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 ‘716 patent. 

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

patent since at least March of 2010, HPL is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 

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

31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, HPL has suffered 

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

HPL 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 via SMS) 

32. HPL incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint 

and realleges them as though fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15
16 

33. HPL 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, and 20 of the ‘838 patent . HPL expects that additional claims 

will be asserted upon completion of the pending ex parte reexamination. 

34. HPL is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant infringes 

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

described in Paragraphs 14 and 15. 

 35. In the alternative, HPL 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 14 and 15 have been, 

and continue to be, sent to its subscribers’ mobile devices. 

 36. 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 14 and 15, 

above. HPL 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 14 and 15, 

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

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16
17 

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. 

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

patent since at least March of 2010, HPL is informed and believes, and thereon alleges 

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

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, HPL has suffered 

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

HPL 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 

patent, ‘716 patent, and ‘838 patent; 

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

and its respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, 

successors, 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 patent, 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17
18 

‘716 patent, and ‘838 patent and from inducing or contributing to infringement of any 

such claims by others; 

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

past infringement of one or more of the claims of the ‘757 patent, ‘716 patent, and ‘838 

patent 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 

HPL 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 23rd day of December, 2011. 

 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN G. LISA, LTD. 

By: /s/ Timothy Sperling 

 Timothy D. Sperling 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

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

Timothy Sperling (Ill. State Bar # 6283854) 

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

James D. Busch (Ill. State Bar # 6299217) 

Mildred E. Park (Ill. State Bar # 6293523) 

Donald J. Lisa (Ill. State Bar # 1673998) 

Justin J. Lesko (Ill. State Bar # 6306428) 

Law Offices of Steven G. Lisa, Ltd. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:18
19 

55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3210 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Tel. & Fax: (312) 752-4357 

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 

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 #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:19
20 

Exhibit A

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,957,695, entitled “Method for Integrating Audio And Visual 

Messaging;” issued June 7, 2011. 

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

Retrieving Messages;” issued November 30, 2010; 

3. U.S. Patent No. 7,835,757 entitled “System and Method for Delivering Information to 

a Transmitting and Receiving Device,” issued November 16, 2010; 

4. 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. 

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

Transmitting and Receiving Device" issued March 3, 2009. 

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

Retrieving Messages" issued July 22, 2008. 

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

Retrieving Messages" issued May 20, 2008. 

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

Retrieving Messages," issued October 9, 2007. 

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

a Communication Device," issued October 2, 2007. 

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

Retrieving Messages," issued July 10, 2007. 

11.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. 

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieving Messages," issued February 21, 2006. 

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

3, 2006. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20
21 

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

Visual Messaging," issued November 30, 2004. 

17.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. 

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

2003. 

19.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. 

20.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. 

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieving Messages," issued May 15, 2001. 

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

August 1, 2000. 

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

Erasing Information," issued July 11, 2000. 

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

Methods.” 

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

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device.” 

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

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device.” 

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

Methods.” 

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

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device.” 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:21
22 

31.U.S. Patent Application No. 12/367,358, titled "Content provision to subscribers via 

wireless transmission." 

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

33.U.S. Patent Application No. 12/167,971, titled "System and Method for Delivering 

Information to a Transmitting and Receiving Device." 

34.U.S. Patent Application No. 11/598,832, titled "Systems and Methods for 

Downloading Information to a Mobile Device." 

35.U.S. Patent Application No. 11/598,202, titled "Wireless Messaging System." 

36.U.S. Patent Application No. 10/958,731, titled "System and Method for Integrating 

Audio and Visual Messaging." 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22
23 

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. 

) 

 ) 

J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., ) 

a Delaware Corporation, ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby makes a demand for a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedures as to all issues in the above captioned lawsuit. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of December, 2011. 

 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN G. LISA, LTD. 

By: /s/ Timothy Sperling 

 Timothy D. Sperling 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

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

Timothy Sperling (Ill. State Bar # 6283854) 

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

James D. Busch (Ill. State Bar # 6299217) 

Mildred E. Park (Ill. State Bar # 6293523) 

Donald J. Lisa (Ill. State Bar # 1673998) 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23
24 

Justin J. Lesko (Ill. State Bar # 6306428) 

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 #: 1 Filed: 12/23/11 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24