IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RESTAURANT BRANDS 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Defendant

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

Plaintiff Analytical Technologies, LLC (hereinafter “AT”), by and through its undersigned 

attorneys, files this First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendant 

Restaurant Brands International, Inc. and alleges as follows. 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. This is an action for infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 8,799,083 

under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.

THE PARTIES 

 2. Plaintiff AT is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of 

the State of Wyoming with its principal place of business at 1712 Pioneer Ave Suite 500, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 82001. AT is in the business of licensing patented technology. AT is the assignee of all 

right, title, and interest in United States Letters Patent No. 8,799,083. 

 3. On information and belief, Defendant Restaurant Brands International, Inc. is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada, with a principal place of business at 

130 King Street West, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. On information and belief, Defendant 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 101
2 

does business itself, directly and/or through its subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and agents, in 

the Eastern District of Texas. 

JURISDICTION 

 4. The claims in this action arise under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 

of the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the patent 

infringement claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 

 5. Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction 

pursuant to the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to its substantial business conducted in this 

forum, directly and/or through one or more of its subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and/or agents, 

including (i) having solicited business in the State of Texas, transacted business within the State 

of Texas, and/or attempted to derive financial benefit from residents of the State of Texas, 

including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement causes of action set forth 

herein; (ii) having placed products and services into the stream of commerce throughout the United 

States and having been actively engaged in transacting business in Texas and in this District; and 

(iii) either alone or in conjunction with others, having committed acts of infringement within this 

District and/or induced others to commit acts of infringement within this District. Defendant has, 

directly and/or through a network of subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and/or agents, 

purposefully and voluntarily placed infringing products and services in the stream of commerce 

knowing and expecting them to be purchased and used by consumers in Texas and in this District. 

 6. On information and belief, Defendant, directly and/or through one or more 

subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and/or agents, has advertised and continues to advertise 

(including through websites), used, offered to sell, sold, distributed, and/or induced the sale and/or 

use of infringing products and services in the United States and in this District. Defendant has, 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 102
3 

directly and/or through a distribution network, purposefully and voluntarily placed such products 

and services in the stream of commerce via established channels knowing and expecting them to 

be purchased and used by consumers in the United States and this District. Defendant has 

committed acts of direct infringement in Texas and/or committed indirect infringement based on 

acts of direct infringement by others in Texas and in this District, including Defendant’s U.S.-

based subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and/or agents and Defendant’s customer-users. 

 7. On information and belief, Defendant maintains a corporate presence in the United 

States directly and/or through its subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and agents, including its U.S.-

based subsidiaries Popeyes, Firehouse Subs, and Burger King. On information and belief, 

Defendant maintains corporate offices in the United States at 5707 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, 

Florida. On information and belief, Defendant, directly and/or through one or more U.S.-based 

subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and/or agents, has regularly conducted and/or solicited 

business, engaged in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or derived substantial revenue from 

products and services provided to businesses and/or individuals in Texas and in this District. 

 8. On information and belief, Defendant and its U.S.-based subsidiaries, affiliates, and 

franchisees have operated as agents of one another and vicariously as parts of the same business 

group to work in concert together. On information and belief, Defendant’s U.S.-based subsidiaries, 

affiliates, and franchisees, advertise, promote, use, offer to sell, distribute, and/or sell infringing 

products and services in the United States and this District at the direction and under the control 

of Defendant. 

9. On information and belief, Defendant owns the rights to the trademarks: 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 103
4 

and 

in the United States. On information and belief, Defendant has registered these marks for business 

management and consultation services for restaurants. See https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/ 

showfield?f=doc&state=4804:7o9z3h.2.1 and https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc& 

state=4804:7o9z3h.2.2. 

 10. On information and belief, Defendant, directly or through its U.S.-based 

subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and agents, owns, maintains, and/or operates restaurants 

throughout the United States, including in Texas and in this District, through which customerusers can access Defendant’s products, and services. 

 11. On information and belief, Defendant, alone and through the activities of at least 

its U.S.-based subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, and agents, conducts business in the United 

States, including advertising, using, offering to sell, distributing, and selling infringing products 

and services in this District. Defendant, alone and through at least its U.S.-based sales subsidiaries, 

affiliates, franchisees, and agents, place such infringing products and services into the stream of 

commerce via established channels knowing or understanding that such services would be offered 

for sale, sold, and/or used in the United States, including in the State of Texas. The exercise of 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 104
5 

jurisdiction over Defendant would therefore not offend the traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice. 

VENUE

 12. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because 

Defendant is not a resident of the United States, and therefore may be sued in any judicial district. 

THE PATENT IN SUIT 

 13. On August 5, 2015, United States Letters Patent No. 8,799,083 (“the ’083 patent”), 

entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA 

ELEMENTS,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. A 

copy of the ’083 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

 14. The ’083 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/534,195, which was 

filed on June 27, 2012. The inventor of the ’083 patent has assigned all of his rights, title, and 

interest in and to the ’083 patent to AT. 

 15. AT is the current and sole owner of all rights, title and interest in and to the ’083 

patent and, at a minimum, of all substantial rights in the ’083 patent, including the exclusive right 

to enforce the patent and all rights to pursue past, present and future damages and to seek and 

obtain injunctive or any other relief for infringement of the ’083 patent. 

 16. Defendant has had actual notice of the ’083 Patent and Defendant’s infringing 

activities since at least March 23, 2023. 

Overview of the Technology 

17. The ’083 patent relates to restaurant customer service management systems and 

methods, particularly systems and methods for customers to order and pay for food items and/or 

beverages remotely using their mobile phone. 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 105
6 

 18. As described in the specification of the ‘083 patent, at the time of the invention, the 

restaurant and hospitality industry was rapidly changing as a result of the change in demographics 

of the customer base and the introduction of technology. At that time, the traditional experience in 

which a customer partook when dining out was still the same model that had been employed for 

hundreds of years. 

19. The newer generation of restaurant customers (and operators) at that time, however, 

were from Generation X—these customers were generally educated, highly competent with 

technology, considered time as a valuable commodity, often impatient, and enjoyed continuous 

and interactive entertainment. In order to serve those customers and operators, new methodologies 

for managing the customer experience were required to meet the changing needs. The specification 

of the ‘083 patent invention describes these new concepts, capabilities and methodologies for a 

customer-managed dining experience. 

20. At that time, the restaurant industry was using a suite of disparate technologies to 

solve a variety of operator related issues. The concept and methodology described in the 

specification of the ‘083 patent integrated many of these various technologies into a single 

comprehensive solution combined with additional capabilities aimed at improving the customer 

experience, while putting a portion of the technology solution into the customer's hands. 

The Patented Invention

 21. As described in the specification of the ‘083 patent, the systems and methods of the 

present invention enable a customer-user to use their mobile phone to interact with the restaurant 

without the involvement of the restaurant’s staff. 

 22. According to certain embodiments, when a customer-user accesses a restaurant’s 

system with their mobile phone, for example though the restaurant’s app or website, a current and 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 106
7 

up-to-date menu of food items and/or beverages based on the current time of day (e.g., breakfast 

menu, lunch menu, dinner menu, late night menu, etc.) is uploaded to the customer-user’s mobile 

phone. 

 23. If logged in and identified to the restaurant’s system, the restaurant’s system can 

draw upon past experience of the customer-user, or other information collected from the login 

process such as demographics, credit limits, etc., to intelligently present the menu and provide or 

highlight food and/or beverage selections that would be appealing to that particular customer-user. 

The system could potentially place the intelligent selections at the front of the menu, followed by 

the regular menu. 

24. Once in the menu selection process, customer-users can put together an order on 

their own. The process for identifying and selecting individual food items and/or beverages can be 

similar to an internet shopping cart. The menu can include nested hyperlinks or other methods for 

drilling down for additional details to learn more about one or more particular food item(s), 

beverage(s), or combination(s) thereof. For example, a main menu might contain a section on 

hamburgers with a list of potential variations offered, each identified with by an individualized 

name and/or picture and price. By selecting the name or picture, the device, the restaurant system 

would provide additional information on that item including, for example, a larger image with 

details on the ingredients. 

25. A customer-user can then choose to add the food item and/or beverage to their order 

or, alternatively, to return to the previous menu to continue searching for other food items and/or 

beverages. Additional options for customizing an order could also be provided to a customer-user, 

such as pull-down menus for having specific ingredients on the side rather than on the main item, 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 107
8 

substituting certain ingredients for others from a list of choices, and/or requesting additional 

amounts of one or more ingredients. 

26. If a customer-user chooses to order a food item and/or beverage, they can then be 

returned to the main menu to continue the process of selecting items, to add for example additional 

beverages or other food items. At any point during the ordering process, a customer-user can 

review their order, including the current sum of food item and/or beverage prices. 

27. Once a customer-user has completed the ordering process, they can confirm their 

order. Confirming an order causes the restaurant’s system to upload a bill to the customer-user’s 

mobile phone. The customer-user then performs a “Self-Checkout” process, in which they review 

their bill and submit pay therefor bill electronically, for example by entering a credit card number 

and certain authentication information into their mobile phone. The restaurant’s staff is not 

involved in this process. 

 28. Confirming an order also causes the restaurant’s system to initiate the process of 

preparing the specific food items and/or beverages that have been ordered. In the case of a 

restaurant with multiple locations, the restaurant’s system may send the order to a specific location 

which has been selected by the customer-user. 

The Claims are Directed to Patentable Subject Matter 

 29. The inventions claimed in the ’083 patent include a method involving “receiving at 

least one request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone; 

uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and 

performing a self-checkout by a at least one customer whereby payment for the at least one service 

is submitted by the at least one customer via the mobile phone to the system, wherein the payment 

is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 108
9 

The claims are directed to a solving an existing problem 

 with restaurant ordering systems 

 30. The inventions claimed in the ‘083 patent are directed to a specific way of 

processing an order for food items and/or beverages without the involvement of the staff of the 

restaurant. This is a substantial improvement over prior restaurant ordering systems. 

 31. More specifically, as described in the specification of the ‘083 patent, the claimed 

invention eliminates the need for restaurant staff to be involved in payment processing and/or 

collection, thereby reducing costs and increasing efficiency. That is, as described in the 

specification of the ‘083 patent, the claimed invention enables a customer to purchase food items 

and/or beverages from a restaurant completely autonomously. This is a substantial improvement 

over prior restaurant ordering systems which required the involvement of one or more members of 

the restaurant’s staff and therefore represents a significant potential cost-savings to the restaurant 

owner as well as reducing the possibility of errors in a customer’s order and/or in payment 

processing. 

 32. Restaurants differ from grocery stores and similar locations where food items 

and/or beverages may be purchased in that restaurants prepare food items and/or beverages to order, 

rather than preparing them in advance like, for example, a convenience store or grocery store, and 

the preparation and sale of food items and/or beverages to paying customers is a restaurant’s only 

business. 

The claimed invention could not have been implemented 

using conventional technology at the time 

 33. Not only did the inventions described and claimed in the ‘083 patent represent a 

new and innovative way of processing orders for food items and/or beverages, the use of a portable, 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 109
10 

handheld device to order and to pay for food items and/or beverages from a restaurant required 

new developments in mobile phone technology. 

 34. IBM created the first mobile app in 1993 with SIMON, a touchscreen smartphone 

with ten built-in apps, including Email, Calendar, Address Book, Note Pad, and Calculator. The 

next smartphone wasn’t released until 2002 with Research in Motion Limited (RIM)’s BlackBerry 

5810. The BlackBerry 5810 came with preloaded apps such as arcade games, a ringtone editor, 

and a sketch pad, and, notably, was the first mobile phone with a wireless mailing system and the 

first device to implement push notifications. As such, the BlackBerry 5810 was more than just a 

mobile phone, it was a wireless enabled handheld computer. 

35. Prior to the adoption and implementation of the 3G standard, handheld devices like 

mobile phones were incapable of performing the steps of the claimed method, such as uploading 

a menu of the restaurant to a user’s mobile phone from which food items and/or beverages could 

be selected or uploading a receipt for the particular food items and/or beverages selected. The use 

of packet switching, as opposed to circuit switching, enabled these processes to be performed with 

the limited circuitry available on a handheld device like a mobile phone. 

36. In addition, prior to the introduction of smartphones with wireless mailing systems 

in 2002, mobile payments could only be made via text message. Prior to that, it was not possible 

for a consumer to purchase items with a credit or debit card using their mobile phone or similar 

handheld device. 

The claims are not directed to an abstract idea or law of nature 

37. The claims of the ‘083 patent are not directed to an abstract idea or law of nature. 

 38. Claim 1 of the ‘083 patent is directed to method of processing an order for food 

items and/or beverages from a restaurant without the involvement of the staff of that restaurant. 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 110
11 

Processing an order food items and/or beverages is not a law of nature and the specific way in 

which the claimed method enables such processing, i.e., uploading a menu to the customer to select 

food items and/or beverages, uploading a receipt to the customer after food items and/or beverages 

have been selected, and submitting payment for the food items and/or beverages through a mobile 

phone, thereby paying for the food items and/or beverages order without the involvement of any 

restaurant staff, is not an abstract idea. 

39. The claims of the ‘083 patent are not directed to, nor do they cover, a fundamental 

economic practice long prevalent in the system of commerce in the United States. Rather, before 

the invention claimed in the ‘083, there was no way to process an order for food items and/or 

beverages from a restaurant without the staff of that restaurant being involved in some way. 

The claims do not preempt their field 

 40. The claims of the ‘083 patent do not merely recite a generic way of processing an 

order for food items and/or beverages from a restaurant. Rather, the claimed inventions are directed 

to a specific way of ordering and paying for food items and/or beverages from a restaurant via a 

customer’s mobile phone, thereby eliminating the need for restaurant staff to be involved in the 

processing of or collection of payment for an order for food items or beverages. 

 41. Alternative ways exist and are known for processing an order for food items and/or 

beverages from a restaurant. Prior to the inventions claimed in the ‘083 patent, for example, 

restaurant staff members were responsible for processing and collecting payment for orders for 

food items and/or beverages. Even with respect to the more specific concept of remote payments 

for orders of food items and/or beverages, a POSITA knows and understands other ways in which 

this can be accomplished other than through the customer’s mobile phone, for example, via a 

desktop computer. 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 111
12 

 42. Additionally, it is well-known that food items and/or beverages can be prepared in 

advance of receiving an order from a customer, such as is done at many convenience stores. Those 

food items and/or beverages may then be placed on shelves and customers can pick and choose 

the food items and/or beverages that they wish. One example of this is the Pret A Manger chain. 

When coupled with a self-checkout procedure, this process would accomplish the same general 

result as the claimed method, although without permitting the customer to request any modification 

to the food items and/or beverages purchased. 

The claimed method could not be performed mentally or by hand 

43. The very essence of the claimed method is that it does not require any involvement 

of the staff of the restaurant, i.e., the customer can order and pay for their food items and/or 

beverages completely autonomously and electronically. A POSITA would know and understand 

that the claimed method could not possibly be performed mentally or by hand. 

DEFENDANT’S SYSTEM AND SERVICES 

 44. On information and belief, Defendant owns four of the world's most prominent and 

iconic quick service restaurant brands – TIM HORTONS®, BURGER KING®, POPEYES®, and 

FIREHOUSE SUBS®. 

 45. On information and belief, each of the quick service restaurant brands owned by 

Defendant offers a mobile app through which customers can use their mobile phones to place and 

pay for orders for food items and/or beverages. 

 46. On information and belief, the mobile apps offered by Defendant provide a menu 

(or menus) from which a customer can select one of more food items and/or beverages and then 

upload a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer’s mobile phone, which 

the customer pays via his/her mobile phone.

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 112
13 

 47. Despite not having a license to the ’083 patent, each of the quick service restaurant 

brands owned by Defendant offers a mobile app that incorporates the technology covered by the 

claims of the ’083 patent. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Direct Infringement of the ’083 Patent) 

 48. AT hereby repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 40 as 

if fully set forth herein. 

 49. The ’083 patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282. 

 50. AT has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 as have all prior owners 

of the ’083 patent. 

 51. The accused products and services are covered by one or more claims of the ’083 

patent and therefore infringe the ’083 patent. Claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 identifies 

specifically how each element of each asserted claim of the ’083 patent is practiced by an 

exemplary mobile app offered by the quick service restaurant brands owned by Defendant. 

 52. A customer may use Defendant’s mobile app(s) to order food items and/or 

beverages from one of Defendant’s restaurants if, and only, if that customer complies with the 

terms and conditions issued by Defendant for the use of that mobile app. 

53. Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’083 patent has injured and continues to 

injure AT and AT is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for that infringement in 

an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty. 

 54. Despite Defendant’s knowledge of the ’083 patent and its infringing activities, 

Defendant has continued to use, sell, and/or offer for sale products and services falling within the 

scope of one or more claims of the ’083 patent, without authority from AT. Defendant has 

therefore acted recklessly and Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’083 patent has been willful, 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 113
14 

egregious, deliberate and intentional, justifying an award to AT of increased damages and 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 55. Even after becoming aware of its direct infringement of the ’083 patent, on 

information and belief, Defendant has made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to 

design around the claims of the ’083 patent in order to avoid infringement. These actions 

demonstrate Defendant’s blatant and egregious disregard for AT’s patent rights. 

 56. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful activities, AT has suffered and will continue to 

suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendant’s continued direct 

infringement of the ’083 patent causes harm to AT in the form of loss of goodwill, damage to 

reputation, loss of business opportunities, lost profits, inadequacy of monetary damages, and/or 

direct and indirect competition. Monetary damages are insufficient to compensate AT for these 

harms. Accordingly, AT is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Indirect Infringement of the ’083 Patent) 

 57. AT hereby repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 48 as 

if fully set forth herein. 

 58. Defendant’s customer end-users directly infringe the claims of the ‘083 patent, 

including at least claim 1 through their use of the mobile apps offered by Defendant in the United 

States. 

 59. Defendant indirectly infringes by inducing infringement of the claims of the ’083 

patent by aiding and abetting consumer end-users to use Defendant’s mobile apps in their normal 

and customary way in the United States and in this District and by contributing to infringement of 

the claims of the ’083 patent by supplying mobile apps and providing instructions to consumer 

end-users for using those apps in practicing the method claimed in the ’083 patent. 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 114
15 

 60. Defendant aids and abets consumer end-users in infringing the claims of the ’083 

patent with the knowledge of, and the specific intent to cause, the acts of direct infringement 

performed by these consumer end-users. On information and belief, despite having knowledge of 

the ’083 patent, Defendant continues and will continue to provide and support the mobile apps 

through which customer end-users directly infringe the ‘083 patent. 

 61. Defendant’s indirect infringement of the ’083 Patent has injured and continues to 

injure AT and AT is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for that infringement in 

an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty. 

 62. Despite Defendant’s knowledge of the ’083 patent and its infringing activities and 

the infringing activities of consumer end-users of Defendant’s mobile apps, Defendant has 

continued to provide and support products and services falling within the scope of one or more 

claims of the ’083 Patent, without authority from AT. Defendant has therefore acted recklessly 

and Defendant’s indirect infringement of the ’083 patent has been willful, egregious, deliberate 

and intentional, justifying an award to AT of increased damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 63. Even after becoming aware of its indirect infringement of the ’083 patent, on 

information and belief, Defendant has made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to 

design around the claims of the ’083 patent in order to avoid infringement. These actions 

demonstrate Defendant’s blatant and egregious disregard for AT’s patent rights. 

 64. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful activities, AT has suffered and will continue to 

suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendant’s continued 

indirect infringement of the ’083 patent causes harm to AT in the form of loss of goodwill, damage 

to reputation, loss of business opportunities, lost profits, inadequacy of monetary damages, and/or 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 115
16 

direct and indirect competition. Monetary damages are insufficient to compensate AT for these 

harms. Accordingly, AT is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 Wherefore, AT respectfully prays this Court enter judgment in its favor on each and every 

Claim for Relief and award to AT relief, including, but not limited to, the following: 

 A. Entry of judgment in favor of AT, and against Defendant, on each and every Claim 

in this Complaint; 

 B. Entry of judgment in favor of AT, and against Defendant, that Defendant has 

directly infringed the claims of the ’083 patent; 

 C. Entry of judgment in favor of AT, and against Defendant, that Defendant has 

indirectly infringed the claims of the ’083 patent by inducing the infringement thereof and/or 

contributing to the infringement thereof; 

 D. Entry of judgment in favor of AT, and against Defendant, that this case is an 

exceptional case and awarding AT its reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 

285 and any other applicable statutes, laws, and/or rules; and 

 E. Entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant, and its officers, 

directors, principals, agents, sales representatives, servants, employees, successors, assigns, 

affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, and all those acting in concert or participation with them, from 

directly infringing, inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of any claim of 

the ’083 patent. 

 F. A determination that AT is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to its taxable 

costs; and 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 116
17 

 G. Entry of judgment in favor of AT, and against Defendant, awarding AT such other 

relief the Court deems just, equitable, and proper. 

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

 AT requests a trial by jury, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all 

issues so triable. 

Dated: October 24, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Donald R. McPhail

 Donald R. McPhail (admitted) 

 OBLON, MCLELLAND, MAIER 

 & NEUSTADT LLP 

 1940 Duke Street 

 Alexandria, VA 22314 

 dmcphail@oblon.com 

 Telephone: 703-413-3000 

 Facsimile: 703-413-2220 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 117
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 24th day of October, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Diana Bowen 

Case 2:23-cv-00288-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 10/24/23 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 118