1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

AMERICAN INVENTOR TECH, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD 

(A KOREAN COMPANY) AND 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC. 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 

 Case No. 6:20-cv-180 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

1. Plaintiff American Inventor Tech, LLC (“Inventor”) files this Original Complaint 

(“Compliant”) against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) and Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd. (a Korean Company) (“SEC”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging infringement as follows: 

2. Counts 1-2: infringement by Defendants’ Android-based devices (smartphones and 

tablets) loaded with or running Android Pie 9.0 or higher (including Android 10.0 and subsequent 

future releases and/or versions which may operate and infringe in a substantially similar manner). 

For purposes of this Complaint, all such devices shall be collectively referred to as the “Accused 

Android Devices.” 

3. Count 1 – U.S. Patent No. 10,397,639, (the ’639 Patent) with at least claim 1 

infringed by the Accused Android Devices. A copy of the ’639 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 

A. 

4. Count 2 - U.S. Patent No. 10,547,895 (the ‘895 Patent) with at least claim 2

infringed by the Accused Android Devices. A copy of the ’895 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 

B. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 21
2

NATURE OF THE SUIT 

5. This is a cause of action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff American Inventor Tech, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its 

principal place of business at 7215 Bosque Boulevard, Suite 160, Waco, Texas 76710. Inventor is 

the sole owner and assignee of each of the Asserted Patents, and has sole standing to file the 

Complaint for infringement. 

7. On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) 

is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with its principal offices at 

105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. 

8. On information and belief, Defendant SEA can be served through its registered 

agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. 

9. On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a 

company organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea with its principal offices 

at 129, Samsung-ro Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. 

10. On information and belief, Defendant SEC owns one hundred percent (100%) of 

SEA. 

11. Defendants SEA and SEC (collectively, “Defendants”) manufacture, sell, and 

import into the United States the Accused Android Devices in cooperation with each other. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 21
3

12. This lawsuit is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws 

of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1367. 

13. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants for at least five reasons: 

(1) Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in this District and elsewhere in Texas; 

(2) Defendants regularly do business or solicit business in this District and in Texas, including 

through their wholly-owned subsidiary entities; (3) Defendants engage in other persistent courses 

of conduct and derive substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in 

this District and in Texas; (4) Defendants have purposefully established substantial, systematic, 

and continuous contacts with this District, including the physical location of offices here, for 

example, offices at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Suite 110, Austin, Texas 78754, 7300 Ranch Road 2222, 

Austin, Texas 78730, and 1700 Scenic Loop, Round Rock, Texas 78681, and should reasonably 

expect to be haled into court here; and (5) SEA has been authorized to do business in the State of 

Texas by the Texas Secretary of State. 

14. Furthermore, SEA has designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 

900, Dallas, TX 75201, as its representative to accept service of process within the State of Texas. 

And Defendant SEC is a foreign entity such that venue is proper in any District within the United 

States. 

15. Defendants’ ties with Texas and this District are extensive. On information and 

belief, Defendants have imported infringing products to the State of Texas and profit from sales 

made to customers located within this District and Texas. 

16. Given these extensive contacts, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants 

will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 21
4

17. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 because 

Defendant SEC is a foreign entity to the United States of America and because Defendants have 

committed acts of infringement in the District and have regular and established places of business 

in the District. 

The Accused Android Devices 

18. Defendants design, develop and manufacture the Accused Android Devices and 

sell/import them into the United States. 

19. As noted above, the Accused Android Devices include all of Defendants’ Androidbased mobile devices (smartphones and tablets) loaded with or running Android Pie 9.0 or higher 

(including Android 10.0 and subsequent future releases and/or versions which may operate and 

infringe in a substantially similar manner). 

COUNT 1: 

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,397,639 

(Accused Android Devices) 

20. Inventor incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above. 

21. The Claim 1 of the ’639 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally 

issued. It is entitled a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. 

22. Without a license or permission from Inventor, Defendants have infringed and 

continue to infringe on at least Claim 1 of the ’639 Patent—directly and/or under the doctrine of 

equivalents—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that 

embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Android 

Devices in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 

23. The Accused Android Devices include a presentation device (smartphone or tablet), 

comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions (shown by the ability to store 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 21
5

instructions) and a plurality of applications including a first media player application (e.g., Google 

Play Movies and TV, etc.), a second media player application (e.g., YouTube, etc.), and a third 

application (e.g., Google Chrome, etc.); a touchscreen; and one or more processors in 

communication with the non-transitory memory and the touchscreen (shown by the ability to 

execute instructions): 

24. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to present, utilizing the touchscreen, a first media player application window 

associated with the first media player application (see below). 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 21
6

25. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to detect, utilizing the touchscreen, a predetermined input: 

“Use two apps at once (“split screen”) 

Note: Settings can vary by device. For more info, contact your device 

manufacturer. 

1. Swipe up from the bottom of your screen to the top. If you see All Apps [Apps 

menu], tap it. 

2. Open an app. 

3. From the bottom of your screen, swipe up to the middle. 

4. Touch and hold the app’s icon. 

5. Tap Split screen. 

6. You'll see two screens. In the second screen, tap another app. 

To see one app again: Drag the bar between the apps to the top or bottom of your 

screen.” 

https://support.google.com/android/answer/9295224?hl=en

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 21
7

26. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to, in response to the detection of the predetermined input, present, utilizing the 

touchscreen, a control user interface adjacent and exterior to the first media player application 

window associated with the first media player application, the control user interface including a 

plurality of non-overlapping selectable representations identifying a subset of the plurality of 

applications that are executed, the selectable representations including: a second media player 

application window representation associated with the second media player application and having 

a first order attribute, and a third application window representation associated with the third 

application and having a second order attribute. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 7 of 21
8

27. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to detect, utilizing the touchscreen, a selection of one of the selectable representations 

of the control user interface including the second media player application window representation 

associated with the second media player application. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 8 of 21
9

28. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to, in response to the detection of the selection of the one of the selectable 

representations of the control user interface, indicate that the second media player application is 

allowed to play one or more media streams in addition to the first media player application being 

allowed to play one or more other media streams, where the first media player application window 

associated with the first media player application is simultaneously presented, utilizing the 

touchscreen, with a second media player application window associated with the second media 

player application, such that the first media player application window is presented with at least 

one first input control and the second media player application window is presented with at least 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 9 of 21
10

one second input control, the at least one first input control and the second input control each 

including at least one of a play input control or a pause input control. 

29. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the instructions 

to detect, utilizing the touchscreen, a selection of the at least one first input control presented with 

the first media player application window. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 10 of 21
11

30. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to, in response to the detection of the selection of the at least one first input control 

presented with the first media player application window, present, utilizing the touchscreen, a first 

media stream in the first media player application window. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 11 of 21
12

31. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to detect, utilizing the touchscreen and while the first media stream is being presented 

in the first media player application window, a selection of the at least one second input control 

presented with the second media player application window. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 12 of 21
13

32. The Accused Android Devices include one or more processors that execute the 

instructions to, in response to the detection of the selection of the at least one second input control 

presented with the second media player application window while the first media stream is being 

presented in the first media player application window, pause the presentation of the first media 

stream in the first media player application window, and present, utilizing the touchscreen, a 

second media stream in the second media player application window. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 13 of 21
14

33. Defendants’ acts of infringement of Claim 1 of the ’639 Patent have caused 

damage to Inventor, and Inventor is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as 

a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271. Defendant’s infringement of Inventors’ exclusive rights under the ’639 Patent will continue 

to damage Inventor. 

34. Furthermore, Claim 1 of the ’639 Patent does not involve a law of nature, a natural 

phenomenon, or an abstract idea. 

35. There is nothing abstract in the manner in which the asserted claims embody the 

accused functionality. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 14 of 21
15

COUNT 2: 

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,547,895 

(Accused Android Devices) 

36. Inventor incorporates by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above. 

37. Claim 2 of the ’895 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued. 

It is entitled a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. 

38. Without a license or permission from Inventor, Defendants have infringed and 

continue to infringe on at least Claim 2 of the ’895 Patent—directly and/or under the doctrine of 

equivalents—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that 

embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Android 

Devices in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 

39. Each of the Accused Android Devices is an apparatus comprised of a touchscreen, 

non-transitory memory storing instructions (e.g., RAM and ROM, etc.) storing instructions and 

circuitry in communication with the touchscreen and the non-transitory memory. Each of the 

Accused Android Devices is configured to detect that a visibility condition associated with a visual 

component of a graphical user interface of a single application that includes at least a portion of a 

media stream is not met, where the visibility condition associated with the visual component of 

the graphical user interface is detected as not being met in the event that at least a portion of the 

visual component of the graphical user interface is invisible based on a change in a size of an area 

in which the at least portion of the visual component of the graphical user interface is displayed, 

and further where the change in the size of the area is changed in response to user input on the 

graphical user interface of the single application that changes the location of the at least the portion 

of the media stream in the graphical user interface of the single application. As shown below a 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 15 of 21
16

media player window (e.g., YouTube media stream) of the Accused Android Device can be scrolled 

to a point where a current media stream is no longer visible. 

40. An Accused Android Device is capable, in the event that the visibility condition is 

not met, automatically avoid sending update information associated with the media stream to the 

touchscreen to avoid an update of the visual component of the graphical user interface that includes 

the at least portion of the media stream, where the avoiding the sending of the update information 

associated with the media stream results in the at least portion of the media stream not being 

played. As shown below, as the media stream is being scrolled up, the media stream continues 

playing, as evidenced by the timestamp in the lower right corner of the media view, and at a point 

where the media stream is no longer completely visible on the display, the stream stops and returns 

to the beginning time value. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 16 of 21
17

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 17 of 21
18

41. An Accused Android Device can detect that the visibility condition is met; and in 

the event that the visibility condition is met, automatically send the update information associated 

with the media stream to the touchscreen to update the visual component of the graphical user 

interface that includes the at least portion of the media stream, where the sending of the update 

information associated with the media stream results in the at least portion of the media stream 

being played. As shown below, when the media stream is scrolled back into view on the display, 

the media stream begins playing again at the point where the media stream previously began being 

scrolled out of view on the screen. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 18 of 21
19

42. Defendants’ acts of infringement of Claim 2 of the ’895 Patent have caused 

damage to Inventor, and Inventor is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as 

a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271. Defendants’ infringement of Inventor’s exclusive rights under the ’895 Patent will continue 

to damage Inventor. 

43. Furthermore, asserted Claim 2 of ’895 Patent does not involve a law of nature, 

a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. 

44. There is nothing abstract in the manner in which the asserted claims embody the 

accused functionality. 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 19 of 21
20

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

Inventor incorporates each of the allegations in the paragraphs above and respectfully asks 

the Court to: 

(a) enter a judgment that Defendants have directly infringed asserted patent claims of 

each of the Asserted Patents; 

(b) enter a judgment awarding Inventor all damages adequate to compensate it for 

Defendants’ infringement of the Asserted Patents, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment 

interest at the maximum rate permitted by law; 

(c) issue a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, its directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, and those acting in privity or in concert with them, and their 

subsidiaries, divisions, successors, and assigns, from further acts of infringement of one or more 

of the asserted patent claims of the Asserted Patents; 

(d) enter a judgment requiring Defendants to pay the costs of this action, including all 

disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285, together with prejudgment 

interest; and 

(e) award Inventor all other relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: March 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

__________________________ 

 Michael Benefield 

 Texas State Bar No. 24073408 

 Buss & Benefield, PLLC 

 1298 West Main Street 

 Greenwood, Indiana 46142 

 Telephone: (317) 887-0050 

 Facsimile: (844) 637-3650 

 michael@bussbenefield.com 

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 20 of 21
21

 Brian Buss 

 Texas State Bar No. 00798089 

 Buss & Benefield, PLLC 

 5011 Alba 

 Houston, Texas 77018 

 Telephone: (512) 619-4451 

 Facsimile: (844) 637-3650 

 brian@bussbenefield.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 6:20-cv-00180-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 21 of 21