1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

MS Sedco, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Texas Instruments Inc, 

Defendant.

Case No. 6:20-cv-531

Patent Case

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff MS Sedco, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), through its attorneys, complains of Texas 

Instruments Inc (“Defendant”), and alleges the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff MS Sedco, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Indiana that maintains its principal place of business at 7898 Zionsville Rd, Indianapolis, IN 

46268.

2. Defendant Texas Instruments Inc is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of Delaware that maintains an established place of business at 12357 Riata Trace Pkwy, 

Suite A-130, Austin, TX 78727.

JURISDICTION

3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

4. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a). 

Case 6:20-cv-00531-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 5
2

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has engaged in 

systematic and continuous business activities in this District. As described below, Defendant has 

committed acts of patent infringement giving rise to this action within this District. 

VENUE

6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendant has 

committed acts of patent infringement in this District, and has an established place of business in 

this District. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered harm in this district.

PATENT-IN-SUIT

7. Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in United States Patent No.

7,545,833 (the “’833 Patent”); (the “Patent-in-Suit”); including all rights to enforce and 

prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers 

of the Patent-in-Suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to 

prosecute the present action for infringement of the Patent-in-Suit by Defendant.

The ’833 Patent

8. The ’833 Patent is entitled “RF door activation system,” and issued 6/9/2009. The 

application leading to the ’833 Patent was filed on 2/4/2005. A true and correct copy of the ’833

Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference.

9. The ’833 Patent is valid and enforceable.

COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’833 PATENT

10. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference. 

11. Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one 

or more claims of the ’833 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, 

selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the 

charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that 

Case 6:20-cv-00531-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 5
3

infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’833 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated 

into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’833 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of 

equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the 

’833 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its 

customers.

12. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’833 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally 

test and use these Exemplary Products.

13. The service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of 

infringement as alleged here.

14. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer 

for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’833 Patent. On 

information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products 

and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its 

products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’833 Patent. Thus, on 

information and belief, Defendant is contributing to and/or inducing the infringement of the ’833

Patent.

15. Induced Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally has 

been and continues to induce infringement of the ’833 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of 

equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user 

products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’833 Patent.

16. Contributory Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally 

has been and continues materially contribute to their own customers’ infringement of the ’833

Case 6:20-cv-00531-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 5
4

Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to 

their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the 

’833 Patent. Moreover, the Exemplary Defendant Products are not a staple article of commerce 

suitable for substantial noninfringing use.

17. Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’833 Patent Claims to the 

Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products 

practice the technology claimed by the ’833 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant

Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’833 Patent Claims. 

18. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim 

charts of Exhibit 2.

19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement.

JURY DEMAND

20. Under Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully 

requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:

A. A judgment that the ’833 Patent is valid and enforceable;

B. A judgment that Defendant has infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or induced 

infringement of one or more claims of the ’833 Patent;

C. An accounting of all damages not presented at trial;

D. A judgment that awards Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284

for Defendant’s past infringement and, with respect to the ’833 patent, any 

Case 6:20-cv-00531-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 4 of 5
5

continuing or future infringement, up until the date such judgment is entered

including pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements as justified 

under 35 U.S.C. § 284;

E. And, if necessary, to adequately compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s 

infringement, an accounting:

i. that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 

and that Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendant

that it incurs in prosecuting this action;

ii. that Plaintiff be awarded costs, and expenses that it incurs in prosecuting this 

action; and

iii. that Plaintiff be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the Court 

deems just and proper.

Dated: June 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Isaac Rabicoff

Isaac Rabicoff

Rabicoff Law LLC

73 W Monroe St

Chicago, IL 60603

(773) 669-4590

isaac@rabilaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

MS Sedco, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00531-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/17/20 Page 5 of 5