1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

KAJEET, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ Case No. 6:20-cv-203 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§ 

§ 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff KAJEET, INC. files this Complaint for Patent Infringement against 

Defendant LIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, LLC, alleging as follows: 

I. THE PARTIES 

1. KAJEET, INC. (“Plaintiff” or “Kajeet”) is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 

7901 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 350, McLean, Virginia 22102. 

2. Defendant LIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, LLC (“Defendant” or 

“Lightspeed”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of California with 

a principal place of business at 2500 Bee Cave Road, Building One, Suite 350, Austin, 

Texas 78746. Lightspeed may be served with process by serving its registered agent, 

National Registered Agents, Inc. at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This is an action for infringement of United States patents under 35 U.S.C. 

§§ 271, et seq. Federal question jurisdiction is conferred to this Court over patent 

infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 19
2 

4. Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters within this District at 2500 

Bee Cave Road, Building One, Suite 350, Austin, Texas 78746 and develops and/or sells 

its products, including the Accused Products described herein, in this District. 

5. Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the Western District of 

Texas such that this venue is fair and reasonable. Defendant has committed such 

purposeful acts and/or transactions in this District that it reasonably should know and 

expect that they could be hailed into this Court as a consequence of such activity. 

Defendant has transacted and, at the time of the filing of this Complaint, continues to 

transact business within the Western District of Texas. 

6. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant makes or sells products 

that are and have been used, offered for sale, sold, and/or purchased in the Western 

District of Texas. Defendant directly and/or through its distribution network, places 

infringing products or systems within the stream of commerce, which stream is directed 

at this district, with the knowledge and/or understanding that those products will be sold 

and/or used in the Western District of Texas. 

7. Likewise, Plaintiff transacts business within the Western District of Texas 

and in competition with Defendant, at least via its equipping Austin Independent School 

District buses with its SmartBus product to provide WiFi internet access to students.1

8. For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists, and venue is proper in this 

Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), respectively. 

1

 See press release at URL: 

https://www.prweb.com/releases/kajeets_smartbus_wi_fi_grant_enables_austin_independ

ent_school_district_to_connect_its_534_school_bus_fleet_with_mobile_education_broad

band/prweb16992282.htm

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 19
3 

III. BACKGROUND AND FACTS 

9. Kajeet is the owner of all rights and title in and to U.S. Patent No. 

8,667,559 (“the ‘559 Patent” or “the Asserted Patent”). The inventions disclosed and 

claimed in the Asserted Patent were developed by the founders, entrepreneurs, and 

engineers of Kajeet and were assigned to Kajeet upon issuance. 

10. Kajeet is a U.S.-based company, founded in 2003, which develops 

software and hardware solutions promoting safe use of mobile devices by children both at 

home and in schools and libraries. Kajeet was founded by three fathers who sought to 

develop systems and methods ensuring safe use of mobile phones, tablets, computers, and 

other mobile devices by their children. 

11. Kajeet has become an industry leader in this area of mobile device 

management, developing innovations that led to the issuance of thirty-four U.S. patents to 

date, including the Asserted Patent, and having implemented its solutions in hundreds of 

school districts comprising thousands of schools across the nation. These innovations 

were directly developed by the founders and engineers at Kajeet as part of Kajeet’s 

continuous work to protect children from inappropriate and distracting online content, 

and to enable schools and families to keep children focused and safe from the many 

potential dangers associated with unconstrained access to online content. 

12. The disclosure and claims of the Asserted Patent describe improved 

control schemes implemented on communication devices, focusing on applications in 

which it is undesirable for the user of the communication device to have unfettered or 

unconstrained access to some or all of the available functionality supported by the 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 19
4 

communication device. See, e.g., the ‘559 Patent at 1:47-62.2

 A typical scenario 

addressed by the Asserted Patent is that of a smartphone, tablet, or laptop used by a child. 

See, e.g., the ‘559 Patent at 4:11-18; 4:38-44; and, 5:20-29. This is a relatively new 

problem that has arisen in the past decade as mobile communication devices have 

become more popular and more widely used throughout society, including in schools and 

at home by children. See, e.g., the ‘559 Patent at 1:51-58; 2:10-21; 4:42-58; 6:34-409; 

12:48-62; and, 14:13-23. 

13. Mobile smartphones appeared in the mid-1990s as Personal Digital 

Assistants (“PDAs”). These devices expanded the set of features accommodated by 

handheld mobile communication devices and their appearance coincided with the rise in 

popularity and use of the World Wide Web. In 2007, Apple released the first iPhone and 

in 2008 released the App Store. This signaled the beginning of mainstream smartphone 

ownership and usage and, in particular, ownership and usage of feature-rich smartphone 

devices by teens and children. Also, during this timeframe, other Internet-capable, mobile 

computing devices greatly expanded in popularity, including tablet devices, including 

iPads and Kindles, as well as laptop devices, including the Google Chromebook. 

Increasingly, these devices are put in the hands of teens and children both by their parents 

and by schools, giving them ready access which they never had before to inappropriate 

content, contacts, sexting, online gaming, among other undesirable features and 

functionality. Further, this new access is cheap, anonymous, and readily-available at any 

time, day or night from virtually anywhere. Parents, as well as school administrators and 

others, have struggled with addressing this newly created problem ever since. 

2 All citations to the ‘559 Patent, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, are illustrative rather than 

exhaustive and therefore do not comprise complete listings of all portions of the specification addressed to 

each topic for which citations are provided. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 19
5 

14. The Asserted Patent is addressed to specific systems and methods for 

addressing this new problem faced by parents, teachers, business owners, and the like. 

The Asserted Patent recognizes that old-world methodologies, such as simply taking the 

devices away, do not truly address the problem at hand and undermine the safety benefit 

of device ownership – continuous access for communication, such as always providing a 

direct means for a parent to call its child or vice versa. For device ownership by teens 

and others to provide this benefit, the device is necessarily in the possession of the teen at 

times when he or she is away from parents, teachers, and the like. Old-world monitoring 

of device use to preventing inappropriate use is therefore also ineffective and does not 

address the true context of this new problem in society created by the development and 

proliferation of feature-rich mobile communication devices. 

15. As explained in the specification of the Asserted Patent, prior art systems 

and methods for controlling mobile communication device usage in such settings were 

ineffective. For example, prepaid phone plans placed limits on the charges that could be 

run up on a mobile communication device but did so through toggling access to the 

communication network off once the account reached a zero balance. Beforehand, access 

to the communication network may be unconstrained while after, no access is provided 

whatsoever. This control scheme was ineffective for preventing misuse of the mobile 

communication device by a child while still providing access to desirable features. See, 

e.g., the ‘559 Patent at 2:36-44. 

16. Likewise, unlimited use smartphone service plans could prevent the 

accumulation of excessive usage costs but were ineffective to prevent overuse or use of a 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 19
6 

mobile communication device at inappropriate times or to access inappropriate content. 

See, e.g., the ‘559 Patent at 3:7-16. 

17. Other solutions involving control through enforcement of decisions based 

upon policies defining permitted use that were set and stored only in accessible portions 

of the memory of the device itself, such as in the volatile memory of the device. These 

solutions were likewise ineffective as the policies upon which decisions effecting control 

were vulnerable to manipulation or deletion by virtue of their only being stored in 

accessible portions of memory of the computing device. Further, such solutions required 

separate and independent configuration of each computing device to be controlled, 

resulting in increased administrative costs. 

18. The Asserted Patent states that the systems and methods disclosed therein 

“are effective tools for any phone user that requires some level of supervision, such as a 

handicapped individual, a person suffering from dementia, a corporate employee, or even 

an adult that has shown poor judgment in the past and needs help managing their affairs.” 

‘559 Patent at 5:34-41. The Asserted Patent also states that: 

 The ability to regulate when a phone can be and cannot be used 

can also be of value to parents and school districts with respect to 

resolving one of the greatest conflicts that exist between parents/students 

and school administrators - mobile phone usage by kids. Parents want 

children to have a mobile phone with them so the child can call the 

parent if need be, i.e., if someone forgets to pick the child up after 

school. School districts do not want the children to have the phones at all 

because the students tend to misuse the phones, i.e., to call friends 

during school, to cheat, to engage in illegal activity, etc. While the 

school districts believe that children should be relegated to only using 

the school phones if the children need to contact a parent, the parents 

want the children to have the phones with them in case they get locked 

out of the school, get lost on a field trip, etc. ‘559 Patent at 12:48-62 

(emphasis added). 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 19
7 

The Asserted Patent therefore recognizes that it is advantageous to dispose the policies 

applied for effecting feature management over communication devices in accordance 

with a scheme that prevents access to them by the user of the device, who may have poor 

judgment or be motivated to otherwise misuse the communication device. 

19. The specification the Asserted Patent discloses, among other innovations, 

systems and methods for providing access to desirable features, such as always allowing 

for calls to a parent, for example, while also preventing access to features deemed 

inappropriate because of cost (e.g., downloadable games or other applications), type of 

content (e.g., gambling or pornographic content), the time of day or night (e.g., during 

school hours or after bed time), and/or the device’s location, among other criteria. See, 

e.g., the ‘559 Patent at 3:54-59; 4:11-18; 5:45-50; 13:8-28; and, Claims. The Asserted 

Patent discloses control embodiments applying decisions based upon policies defining 

acceptable and unacceptable uses of a mobile communication device. The policies may 

be based on a variety of contexts which are set by administrators (e.g., parents or 

teachers). In accordance with certain embodiments of the inventions disclosed, the 

policies are set and stored at the server level to provide simultaneous control over use of 

one or more mobile communication devices. See, e.g., the ‘559 Patent at embodiment of 

Fig. 2; 3:54-59; 4:11-18; 5:45-50; 13:8-28; and, Claims. The intrinsic record states this at 

Office Action Response dated October 17, 2013 filed during prosecution of the ‘559 

Patent at p. 10 (distinguishing a particular embodiment claimed therein on the basis that 

the prior art “does not describe a distributed architecture where policy decisions are 

performed at the server level and those policies are enforced on the phone 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 19
8 

itself.”)(emphasis added). A true and correct copy of this Office Action Response is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated for all purposes. 

20. Application of use decisions based upon a policy stored remote from the 

controlled computing device represented an unconventional scheme that was neither well 

known nor routine for addressing a newly emerging problem in society. Embodiments of 

the inventions disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patent implementing this 

unconventional scheme provide for more robust control that was more resilient to 

manipulation and/or disablement by users of the controlled devices and, therefore, more 

effective than prior art systems and methods. 

21. Lightspeed is a developer of software-based solutions primarily directed to 

the education market and accommodating feature management of computing devices 

configured for operation on communication networks, including laptops, tablets, 

smartphones, and the like. Each of the devices managed by Lightspeed’s software 

comprises a computing device usable to access online content and applications over a 

communication network managed by a service provider, such as an internet service 

provider (ISP). 

22. The Accused Products of Lightspeed include all versions of the Relay 

Platform and all versions of the Mobile Manager products and services. The Accused 

Products accommodate management of mobile communication devices accessing content 

over communication networks via application of remotely stored master policies set by 

administrators (e.g., teachers or parents). 

23. The Accused Products comprise a system of hardware (Lightspeed 

servers) and software (local Smart Agent applications/extensions or the Mobile Manager 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 19
9 

software) implementable on computing devices to accommodate management of certain 

features and functionality of computing devices. The Accused Products are compatible 

for use with communications devices utilizing iOS, OSX, Android, Windows, or Chrome 

OS operating systems. Such devices include iPhones, iPads, Android phones, Android 

tablets, laptops, Chromebooks, and the like. 

24. The Accused Products effect policy-based control over these devices via, 

among other things, executing local agent software on the device. Execution of local 

agent software effects control of the device via routing usage requests to and from the 

device through the Lightspeed servers for policy application. Additionally, or 

alternatively, the local agent software effects control via regular installation and updates 

of locally stored copies of master policies (or derivatives thereof) via communication 

with the Lightspeed servers for on-device application. 

25. Regardless of the mode of policy application employed, all master policies 

defining permissible or impermissible uses of a device are set and stored via Lightspeed’s 

Launch online dashboard and are stored on Lightspeed’s servers. Administrators log into 

Launch to enroll devices and to select and configure policies defining acceptable uses 

which may be applied to devices individually or to groups of devices. For example, 

policies may be set and applied for all devices to be used by students attending a 

particular school, within a particular grade level, and/or in a particular class. Different 

policies may be applied depending on the time-of-day in accordance with schedules. 

Further, different policies may be applied based on the location of the managed device, as 

determined based on the IP address used to access a communication network. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 19
10 

26. Upon information and belief, application of time or location-based policies 

involves determining the time of day where the device is located or the IP address used 

by the device to access a communication network by the local agent software. This 

information is compared to local copies of the time or location-based policies (or 

derivatives thereof) to determine the policy to be applied, such as determining whether on 

or off campus policies or whether weekday or weekend policies are applicable in 

deciding whether a usage request is allowed. Execution of the local agent software 

additionally configures the device to regularly update any locally stored policy copies to 

ensure the policy applied is consistent with the current master policy set by the 

administrator(s) and stored on Lightspeed’s server(s). 

27. Application of policies yields decisions defining what device features and 

network content are usable or accessible by a managed device. Lightspeed accommodates 

selectively permitting or blocking access to device features, such as Internet content, 

mobile applications, and the like based on application of allow/disallow policies, which 

may be further configured in accordance with association of the controlled device to one 

or more defined groups, with schedule-based policies, with location based policies, 

among others. 

28. The Accused Products are operable to create and apply policies permitting 

or preventing a user of a device to: sign in or out of online user accounts; add or remove 

email accounts; access online mobile application marketplaces; make in-app purchases 

for downloaded mobile applications; synchronize content stored on a managed device 

with other devices of the device user; remove mobile applications stored on the device; 

run certain mobile applications; and/or access a communications network. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 19
11 

29. For each managed device, local agent software of the Accused Products is 

enabled on the device in the form of Smart Agent software, Mobile Manager software, or 

an extension to the operating system software. Execution of the local agent software 

causes the managed device to generate or direct requests for uses of the device for 

comparison to applicable usage policies, or derivatives thereof, in connection with 

applying and enforcing master policies defining permissible uses of the managed device. 

30. Lightspeed accommodates implementation of time-based policies defining 

permissible and impermissible device usage, including schedules applied by device 

and/or by defined groups of devices. 

31. In operation, users of a managed device attempt to execute a function on 

the managed device requiring communication over a network. For example, a user of a 

managed device may attempt to make a purchase through a mobile application on the 

managed device. Upon information and belief, the local agent software detects this 

attempted use and formats a usage request for comparison to applicable usage policies. A 

copy of master policies are set on and stored within and/or accessible to the local agent 

software. The request is compared to all current and applicable policies, which may have 

been previously updated, to determine, at least, whether the attempted function is allowed 

or prohibited. Policy decisions are made in real time in response to requests by the 

Accused Products. Decisions are enforced via permitting or blocking execution of the 

requested function or communication. 

32. Upon information and belief, the Accused Products effect feature 

management over devices connected to a communication network without storing the 

master policies on the devices, themselves. Rather, policy copies or derivatives thereof 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 19
12 

are stored on managed devices and regularly updated through execution of the local agent 

software running on the devices. 

33. Lightspeed provides instructions to its customers and users of the Accused 

Products demonstrating how to install, set up, and use each to manage computing devices 

connected to a communications network. Such instructions are provided in the form of, 

at least, user manuals, Lightspeed’s online “Community Site,” “Intercom Help Center,” 

and at URL: help.relay.school. Each of these online resources provide weblinks and 

articles with use instructions and tutorials directed to end users of the Accused Products 

demonstrating use thereof in manners that infringe the Asserted Patent(s). Use of the 

Accused Products in accordance with these instructions constitutes direct infringement of 

the Asserted Patent by end users of the Accused Products. 

34. Lightspeed has had actual knowledge of the Asserted Patent since at least 

the filing of this complaint, therefore, and has had actual knowledge of Kajeet’s claims of 

infringement relating to the Accused Products since that time. Upon information and 

belief, Lightspeed continues to make, use, and sell the Accused Products, including 

ongoing subscriptions, to its customers. 

COUNT I 

PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

U.S. Patent No. 8,667,559 B1 

35. Kajeet repeats and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, 

as though fully set forth herein. 

36. On March 4, 2014, United States Patent No. 8,667,559 B1 (“the ‘559 

Patent”) was duly and legally issued for “Feature Management of a Communication 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 19
13 

Device.” As of the filing of this Complaint, the ‘559 Patent remains in force. A true and 

correct copy of the ‘559 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. 

37. Kajeet is the owner of all right and title in the ‘559 Patent, including all 

rights to enforce and prosecute action for infringement of the ‘559 Patent and to collect 

damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ‘559 Patent. Accordingly, Kajeet 

possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action for 

infringement of the ‘559 Patent by Lightspeed. 

38. The ‘559 Patent generally discloses and claims systems and methods for 

controlling computing devices usable on communication networks to perform various 

functions, such as sending and receiving data over the Internet or other communication 

network, for example. The systems and methods claimed accommodate enforcement of 

decisions granting or denying requests to communicate with remote computing devices 

over a communication network. The decisions are based on the application of one or 

more relevant use policies which may be administrator-configurable and may be stored 

remotely from the controlled computing device. Decisions to grant or deny 

communication requests from the controlled device may be made and effectuated in realtime. 

39. Independent claim 27 of the ‘559 Patent and each dependent claim 

depending therefrom are directed to “methods for controlling a computing device 

configured to execute a function using a communication network managed by a service 

provider.” ‘559 Patent at Claim 27. These claimed methods require, among other steps, 

that a decision is received in real time from a server, with the decision 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 13 of 19
14 

“being based on a policy stored at the server...,” and that “the communication being 

enabled or disabled without storing the policy on the computing device.” Id. 

40. These limitations mandate that the decision applied to effect control over 

the computing device is based on a policy stored at a server remote from the computing 

device. The decision is made upon detection of an attempt by the computing device to 

perform a function on the communication network. These limitations capture the 

distributed architecture concept not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art 

for effecting feature management on a computing device including that the server storing 

the policies upon which decisions are based being meaningfully apart from the computing 

device. This arrangement resulted in improved operation through at least increased 

resilience to undesirable access to policies to manipulate or delete them. 

41. These limitations additionally cover communications initiated by a thirdparty device and directed to a managed device. Effecting control over these incoming 

communications to a communication device was likewise not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art. 

42. Claim 27 of the ‘559 Patent and each claim depending therefrom are 

rooted in control schemes for managing communication devices and require the 

application of decisions based upon remotely stored polices. Remote storage of the 

policies upon which decisions are based makes them less vulnerable to manipulation and 

deletion while still accommodating real-time control concurrent with device usage. 

Communication device management in accordance with these claimed methods improves 

the security, effectiveness, and robustness of control accommodated. As such, the 

claimed methods are directed to patent eligible subject matter. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 14 of 19
15 

43. Additionally, when considered as an ordered combination of elements, 

claim 27 and each claim depending therefrom comprise an “inventive concept” for at 

least the reasons presented herein and above. These claims require storing usage policies 

upon which decisions are based at a server remote from the computing device, an 

unconventional arrangement at the time which yielded improvements in the operation of 

systems implementing the claimed methods. Prior art control was not premised on 

application of decisions based upon policies stored at the server level. Instead, the prior 

art applied decisions based on policies set up on the computing device itself and stored 

only on the computing device. Such policies reside such that they are readily accessible 

for manipulation and/or deactivation or deletion to circumvent control entirely. Further, 

prior art systems required that each device be configured separately and individually with 

its own set of policies. The arrangement claimed in claim 27 and its dependent claims 

run counter to what was well-understood, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary 

skill in the art at the relevant time by applying usage decisions to effect control that are 

based upon policies stored at the server level, remote form the computing device, while 

effecting real-time control over communication devices and providing other benefits, as 

noted herein and above.3

 

44. Additionally, claims 1 and 13 of the ‘559 Patent, and correspondingly the 

dependent claims thereof, are directed to similarly configured systems and methods for 

effecting remote management of communications devices. These claims implement a 

3

 These statements are further supported by the declarations of Dr. Charles D. Knutson, which were 

attached by Kajeet as Exhibits E and I to its Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 144, 144-7, and 144-

11). filed in the action styled Kajeet, Inc. v. Qustodio, LLC, case no. 8:18-cv-01519-JAK-PLA, in the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, and which are hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 15 of 19
16 

distributed architecture approach with master policies applied to effect control of a device 

being stored remotely from the managed devices. 

45. Lightspeed has had actual knowledge of the existence of the ‘559 Patent 

since at least the filing of this complaint. As such, Lightspeed’s infringement of the ‘559 

Patent has been willful since at least that time. 

46. Lightspeed, without authority, consent, right, or license, and in direct 

infringement of the ‘559 Patent, makes, has made, uses, and sells the Accused Products 

which infringe at least claims 1, 13, and 27 of the ‘559 Patent, among others. In 

addition, Lightspeed’s quality testing and demonstrations of operation of the Accused 

Products to manage use of computing devices directly infringe, either literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 13, and 27 of the ‘559 Patent. 

47. Lightspeed actively induces infringement of one or more of the claims of 

the ‘559 Patent by its customers and end users of at least the Accused Products and is 

therefore liable for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). A customer’s use of 

the Accused Products to manage computing devices in the manners described above 

infringes at least claims 1, 13, and 27 of the ‘559 Patent. Lightspeed knows that the 

Accused Products are especially designed for and marketed toward infringing use by 

Lightspeed’s customers, to implement feature management of computing devices. 

Lightspeed has induced, caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and 

indirect customers to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import one or more of the 

Accused Products. Lightspeed provides step-by-step instructions for installation, setup, 

and use of the Accused Products to infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, at least claims 1, 13, and 27 of the ‘559 Patent. These instructions are 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 16 of 19
17 

provided by Lightspeed as user manuals and online content made available by Lightspeed 

through its website. Such conduct by Lightspeed was intended to and actually did result 

in direct infringement by Lightspeed’s direct and indirect customers, including the 

making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused Products in the 

United States. 

48. Lightspeed contributes to the infringement of at least claims 1, 13, and 27 

of the ‘559 Patent by its customers and end users of at least the Accused Products and is 

therefore liable for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). The Accused 

Products are especially designed for controlling use of computing devices in the manner 

described above. Upon information and belief, the Accused Products have no substantial 

non-infringing use, as they are specifically designed and marketed for use by parents, 

teachers, and supervisors to control use of a computing device operating on a 

communication network. Setup and use of the Accused Products by Lightspeed’s 

customers in the manner constitutes direct infringement, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, of at least claims 1, 13, and 27 of the ‘559 Patent. 

49. Kajeet expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims of the ‘559 

Patent against Lightspeed. 

50. Kajeet has been damaged as a result of Lightspeed’s infringing conduct. 

Lightspeed is, thus, liable to Kajeet in an amount that adequately compensates for their 

infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with 

interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 

51. Based on Lightspeed’s actual knowledge of the ‘559 Patent and of 

Kajeet’s allegations of patent infringement presented herein since at the filing of this 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 17 of 19
18 

Complaint, if not earlier, as well as Lightspeed’s objective recklessness in continuing to 

offer for sale and selling the Accused Products since that time, Kajeet is further entitled 

to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 

VI. JURY DEMAND 

52. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and 

against Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: 

a. Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patent have been 

directly infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by 

Defendant, or judgment that one or more of the claims of the Asserted 

Patent have been directly infringed by others and indirectly infringed by 

Defendant, to the extent Defendant contributed to or induced such direct 

infringement by others; 

b. Judgment that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to 

and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s infringing activities 

and other conduct complained of herein, including enhanced damages as 

permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

c. Judgement that Defendant’s infringement is willful from the time 

Defendant was made aware of the infringing nature of its products and 

methods and that the Court award treble damages for the period of such 

willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 18 of 19
19 

d. That Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the 

damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct 

complained of herein; 

d. That the Court declare this an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; 

and 

e. That Defendant, its officers, agents, servants and employees, and those 

persons in active concert and participation with any of them, be 

permanently enjoined from infringement of one or more claims of the 

Asserted Patent or, in the alternative, if the Court finds that an injunction 

is not warranted, Plaintiff requests an award of post judgment royalty to 

compensate for future infringement; 

g. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may 

deem just and proper under the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Jonathan T. Suder 

Jonathan T. Suder 

Michael T. Cooke 

Corby R. Vowell 

Richard A. Wojcio 

FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE 

604 East 4th Street, Suite 200 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

817-334-0400 

Fax: 817-334-0401 

jts@fsclaw.com 

mtc@fsclaw.com

vowell@fsclaw.com 

wojcio@fsclaw.com 

Attorneys for KAJEET, INC.

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 19 of 19