1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

MODULUS SYSTEMS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEXATEK TECHNOLOGY LTD,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-239

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff states for its Complaint against Defendant as follows:

INTRODUCTION

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

States, Title 35, United States Code.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Modulus Systems LLC is a limited liability company organized and 

existing under the laws of Delaware.

3. On information and belief, Defendant Dexatek Technology LTD is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of Taiwan with a regular and established place of business at

16F.-1, No.81, Sec. 1, Xintai 5th Rd., Xizhi Dist., New Taipei City 22101, Taiwan (R.O.C.).

Case 2:23-cv-00239 Document 1 Filed 05/27/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
2

JURISDICTION

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action set forth herein 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the 

United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. For example, Plaintiff’s

cause of action arises directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in and/or 

directed toward the State of Texas. On information and belief, Defendant has derived substantial 

revenues from its infringing acts occurring within the State of Texas.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant consistent with the 

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the Texas Long 

Arm Statute. On information and belief, Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the 

forum because Defendant, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, transacts substantial 

business in the State of Texas and in this Judicial District. Further, on information and belief, 

Defendant has, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, committed acts of patent 

infringement in the State of Texas and in this Judicial District as alleged in this Complaint.

Moreover, on information and belief, Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed its

products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and used 

by customers located in the State of Texas. On information and belief, Defendant’s customers in 

the State of Texas have used Defendant’s infringing products.

7. Venue is proper in this Court as to Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) on 

the grounds that Defendant is a foreign corporation.

Case 2:23-cv-00239 Document 1 Filed 05/27/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2
3

Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573

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

8,610,573, including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement and to collect 

damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ʼ573 patent. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

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

ʼ573 patent by Defendant.

9. The ʼ573 patent, which issued on December 17, 2013, is entitled, “Radio 

Frequency Module and Methods of Transmitting/Receiving Data.” The ʼ573 patent issued from 

U.S. Application No. 12/558,484, which was filed on September 11, 2009. The ʼ484 application 

claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/096,163, filed on September 11, 2008. 

A true and correct copy of the ʼ573 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated 

herein by reference.

COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ573 PATENT

10. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the preceding allegations of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

11. Plaintiff provided Defendant notice of its infringement by letter dated May 19, 

2023, which letter was received by Defendant prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 

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

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ʼ573 patent by making, using, offering to sell, 

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

chart incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) and/or 

inducing distributors, end users, and others to offer, sell, or use its products in the customary and 

Case 2:23-cv-00239 Document 1 Filed 05/27/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3
4

intended manner that it knows to infringe the ʼ573 patent (including by selling the Exemplary 

Defendant Products and distributing product literature and website materials). See Exhibit B.

13. Exhibit B includes a chart comparing the Exemplary ʼ573 Patent Claim to the 

Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in this chart, the Exemplary Defendant Products 

practice the technology claimed by the ʼ573 patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant 

Products incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ʼ573 Patent Claim.

14. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference the claim chart of Exhibit B into its 

allegations herein.

15. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant's 

infringement.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

a. Declaring that Defendant has infringed the ʼ573 patent;

b. That Defendant be ordered to pay damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for 

its infringement of the ʼ573 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

c. That Defendant be ordered to pay prejudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 

284;

d. That Defendant be ordered to pay all costs associated with this action pursuant to

35 U.S.C. § 284;

e. That Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 285; and

f. That Plaintiff be granted such other and additional relief as the Court deems just 

Case 2:23-cv-00239 Document 1 Filed 05/27/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 4
5

and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

THIS 27th day of May, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Cortney S. Alexander 

Cortney S. Alexander

Telephone: 404-855-3867

Email: cortneyalexander@kentrisley.com

KENT & RISLEY LLC

5755 North Point Parkway

Suite 57

Alpharetta, Georgia 30022

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:23-cv-00239 Document 1 Filed 05/27/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5