First Amended Complaint

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION,

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-419

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff files this complaint for patent infringement of two (2) patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,651,369 and 8,936,190 (collectively “the Symbology Patents”). The ’773 Patent the patent that 

issued from the parent patent application to which the patents-in-suit claim their priority date.1 

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with an office at 1 East Broward Boulevard, 

Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301.

2. Defendant Valve Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Washington with a principal place of business located at 10900 NE 4th St., Ste. 

500, Bellevue, WA 98004. Defendant can be served via its registered agent for service of 

process: Corpserve Inc., 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4500, Seattle, WA 98154.

3. Defendant Gearbox Software, L.L.C. has a principal place of business located at 5757 Main 

St., Suite 500, Frisco, Texas, 75034, which is located in this District. Gearbox Software, 

L.L.C. and Valve Corporation are collectively referred to herein as “Defendant.”

1 Expiration Date for the Patents-in-suit is no earlier than September 15, 2030.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 306
First Amended Complaint

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 

Plaintiff is seeking damages for patent infringement.

5. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal Question) and 

1338(a) (Patents). 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and 

systematic business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant transacts business within 

this District and elsewhere in the State of Texas and has appointed an agent for service of 

process in Texas. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant based on its 

commission of one or more acts of infringement in this District and in the State of Texas.

7. Defendant directly conducts business extensively throughout the State of Texas, by 

distributing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and advertising its services in the 

State of Texas and in this District. Valve Corporation has corroborated with Frisco based 

Gearbox Software, L.L.C. for years starting with Half-Life and Counter-Strike video game 

offerings, that have continuations of these popular offerings available through present day.

Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily made its business services, including the 

infringing systems and services, available to residents of this District and into the stream 

of commerce with expectation and intention that they will be purchased and/or used by 

consumers in this District as listed below.

8. Valve Corporation was an Active Texas Franchise Tax Account with Texas Taxpayer 

Number 32072215380.

Figure 1 - Screenshot of Valve Corporation’s Texas Franchise Tax Account Status as visited on 

August 22, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 307
First Amended Complaint

9. Valve has consented to patent infringement litigation in the past in this district. Indeed, 

Valve has even intervened in an on-going patent infringement case here in the Eastern 

District of Texas on behalf of one of its developers, Activision Blizzard, Inc. “Valve, for 

the purposes of this litigation only, consents to venue in this district, . . .” Uniloc v. 

Activision Blizzard, Inc., Case 6:13-cv-00256-LED, Dkt. No. 154-1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 

2014).

10. Valve has previously admitted that venue was proper in this district. “Valve does not 

dispute, for the purposes of this action only, that venue is proper in this judicial district, 

[The Eastern District of Texas] . . .” Display Technologies, LLC v. Nvida Corp. (Valve 

Corp. consolidated), Case 2:15-cv-00998-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 41 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015) 

[Valve Corp. Answer to Patent Infringement Complaint at ¶4].

11. Valve sells its Gift Cards in this District through prominent brick and mortar retailers 

including Best Buy, GameStop and Walmart. 

12. On information and belief, Valve has agreements akin to AppleBee franchisees with 

Gaming Cafés in this District and Texas in general. 

o One example is GG EZ Gaming Cafe, 2001 Coit Rd STE 210, Plano, TX 75075.

o Another example is The Kardboard Box Gaming Lounge, located at 2963 West 

15th Street, Suite 2995, Plano, Texas 75075. See 

https://thekardboardbox.com/contact/, as last visited on January 26, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 308
First Amended Complaint

Figure 2 – Excerpt from https://thekardboardbox.com/contact/, as last visited on January 16, 

2024, which is Plano’s Kardboard Box Gaming Lounge website.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 309
First Amended Complaint

Figure 3 – Screenshot of Valve Gift Cards obtained by clicking on Best Buy, a result from a search 

of “Valve gift cards are sold where?” as conducted on September 14, 2023. 

13. Upon information and belief, Valve Corp. has at least 5 (five) employees that reside in the 

state, who have relevant information related to this patent infringement lawsuit, including:

o Former Valve Corporation employee - Mitchell Ludolf (on information and belief 

he was an employee when the original complaint was filed).

§ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mitchell-ludolf-90b634212/, 

§ Customer Service Representative.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 310
First Amended Complaint

o Former Valve Corporation employee - Brandon Reinhart (on information and belief 

he was an employee when the original complaint was filed). 

§ https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-reinhart-a26ab8260/

o Former Valve Corporation employee - Helen Pope 

§ https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-pope-3a17111b0/

§ Senior Software Engineer / Augmented Reality at Valve corporation

o Former Valve Corporation employee - Jenny Jacobi

§ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennyjacobi/

•

Figure 6 – Valve Corporation developer community screenshot listing Frisco based Gearbox 

Software, L.L.C. at https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Gearbox_Software as last visited on 

September 14, 2023. 

14. Venue is proper in this District as to Defendant pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2) 

and 1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and established business 

presence in this District as shown above through Valve’s licensing agreements with gaming 

establishments in this District, among other evidence. And defendant Gearbox is 

physically located in this District. Additionally, in prior litigation titled Display 

Technologies, LLC v. Valve Corporation, 2-15-cv-00999 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2015), on 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 311
First Amended Complaint

information and belief a requirement relating to disputes in the future requires resolution 

in this District.

PATENTS-IN-SUIT

15. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,651,369 

(hereinafter “the ’369 Patent”), and 8,936,190 (collectively “the Symbology Patents”).

16. The Symbology Patents are valid, enforceable, and were duly issued in full compliance 

with Title 35 of the United States Code.

17. Plaintiff possesses all rights of recovery under the Symbology Patents, including the 

exclusive right to recover for past, present and future infringement.

18. The inventor of the Symbology Patents, Mr. Leigh M. Rothschild, was Chairman and Chief 

Executive Officer of IntraCorp Entertainment, Inc., a consumer software company with 

worldwide product distribution. From October 1998 through February 2004, Mr. 

Rothschild was also Chairman and founder of BarPoint.com, a NASDAQ publicly traded 

wireless company that was the leader and early creator of connecting symbology, such as 

barcodes, to the Internet.

19. Mr. Rothschild chairs the Rothschild Family Foundation, which endows outstanding 

charities and institutions around the world.

20. The priority date of the ’773 Patent is at least as early September 15, 2010. As of the priority 

date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine.

21. The ’369 Patent contains twenty-eight claims including three independent claims and 

twenty-five dependent claims.

22. The priority date of the ’369 Patent is at least as early September 15, 2010. As of the priority 

date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine.

23. Plaintiff alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’369 Patent.

24. The Symbology Patents teach a system and method for enabling a portable electronic 

device to retrieve information about an object when the object’s symbology, e.g., a 

barcode, is detected. See ’369 Patent, Abstract. According to one embodiment a method 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 312
First Amended Complaint

is provided in which symbology associated with an object is detected and decoded to obtain 

a decode string. Id. The decode string is sent to one or more visual detection applications 

for processing, wherein the one or more visual detection applications reside on the portable 

electronic device, and receiving a first amount of information about the object from the one 

or more visual detection applications. Id.

25. As noted, the claims of the Symbology Patents have a priority date at least as early as

September 15, 2010. The present invention allows for users to quickly and conveniently 

obtain information about an object utilizing a portable electronic device that detects 

symbology associated with the object. ’773 Patent, 1:55-60; 2:46-54. Using any applicable 

visual detection device (e.g., a camera, scanner, or other device) on the portable electronic 

device, the user may select an object by scanning or capturing an image of symbology (e.g., 

barcodes) associated with the object. Id. The object may be an article of commerce, 

product, service, or any item associated with various types of symbology. Id.

26. The system(s) and methods of the Symbology Patents include software and hardware that 

do not operate in a conventional manner. For example, the software is tailored to provide 

functionality to perform recited steps and the hardware (e.g., portable electronic device) is 

configured (and/or programmed) to provide functionality recited throughout the claims of 

the Symbology Patents.

27. The features recited in the claims in the Symbology Patents provide improvements to 

conventional hardware and software systems and methods. The improvements render the 

claimed inventions of the Symbology Patents non-generic in view of conventional 

components.

28. The features and recitations in the claims of the Symbology Patents are not those that would 

be well-understood, routine, or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 

of the invention.

29. The ’773 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Allyson Trail. 

During the examination of the ’773 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 313
First Amended Complaint

prior art in the following US Classifications: 235/375; 235/379; 705/80; 705/14.1; and 

705/39.

30. The ’369 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Allyson Trail. 

During the examination of the ’369 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for 

prior art in the following US Classifications: 235/375; 235/379; 705/14.1; 709/39; and 

709/80.

31. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’369 Patent, the United 

States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art 

references found during the search: US 2007/0216226; US 2007/0291534; US 

2008/0201310; US 2009/0099961; US 2010/0280896; and US 2010/0280960.

32. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for 

all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the 

United States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’369 and the ’190 Patents

to issue. 

33. In view of the foregoing, the claims of these Patents are novel and non-obvious, including 

over all non-cited art which is merely cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. 

Likewise, the claims of the ’369 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all noncited contemporaneous state of the art systems and methods, all of which would have been 

known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and which were therefore presumptively also 

known and considered by the Examiner.

34. The expiration date for the claims of the ’369 Patent is September 15, 2030.

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

35. Upon information and belief, Defendant sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or otherwise 

provides QR codes associated with an app (the “Accused Instrumentalities”) as disclosed 

in Symbology’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions (herein included by reference).

36. For purposes of defining what patent claims are asserted as well as the claims that 

specifically are not being asserted, Plaintiff identifies as shown on its served preliminary 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 314
First Amended Complaint

infringement contentions that Defendants Gearbox and Valve, direct and indirectly each 

infringe Claims 1, 7, and 24 of the ’369 Patent, and Claims 1, 7, and 20 of the ’190 Patent.

Patent Claim Restriction Disclosure and Notice of Abandonment of Subject Matter.

37. There are a plethora of factual disputes that preclude resolution of this matter at the 

pleading stage. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2018)

(“The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is wellunderstood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question

of fact that must be proven ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’”).

38. The’369 Patent and the ’190 Patent are continuations of the same parent application, 

which issued on August 9, 2011, as U.S. Patent No. 7,992,773 (“The Parent” or “’773 

Patent”) and is entitled “System and Method for Presenting Information about an Object 

on a Portable Electronic Device.” 

39. During the prosecution of the ‘773 Patent, the applicant narrowed Claim 1 of the ’773 

patent via claim amendment in response to an Office Action issued by the USPTO (See

Symbology production, Bates Nos. SYM000083 and SYM000088 – SYM000096). As a 

result of applicant’s amendment to Claim 1, the ’773 Patent includes the limitation in 

which the “one or more visual detection applications” are configured to “run in the 

background,” “automatically” decode “symbology” and send the decode string to another 

“visual detection application” residing on the portable device.

40. Importantly, during the prosecution of the Asserted Patents, applicant did not rescind the 

limitation requiring the visual detection to occur automatically or said another way the 

app is always looking for a QR code and this activity is always running in the 

background. 

41. Additionally, the ’773 Patent, the ‘369 Patent and the ’190 Patent all contain the same 

language in the specifications as it relates to the “visual detection applications.” Thus, 

Symbology’s position is that the limitation in the Parent Patent applies to the phrase 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 315
First Amended Complaint

“visual detection applications” in the Asserted Patents, and a proper construction of this 

phrase is required in order to properly evaluate the merits of any allegation purporting to 

contain an “abstract concept” argument.

COUNT ONE

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,651,369) 

42. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs above, the same as if set 

forth herein. 

43. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in particular 

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 

44. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’369 Patent at least as of the service of 

the present complaint.

45. Accordingly, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, the ’369 Patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and 

continues to infringe Claims1, 7, and 24 of the ’369 Patent by making, using, importing, 

selling, and/or offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities.

46. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’369 Patent, by having 

its employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

47. As set forth in the infringement contentions, the Accused Instrumentalities practice the 

technology claimed by the ’369 Patent. Accordingly, the Accused Instrumentalities 

incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of exemplary claims 1, 7, and 24 of the ’369

Patent.

48. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is enjoined by 

this Court. 

49. The ’369 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 

of the United States Code. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 316
First Amended Complaint

89. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Plaintiff and is 

liable for infringement of the ’369 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

90. Defendant has committed these acts of literal infringement, or infringement under 

the doctrine of equivalents of the ’369 Patent, without license or authorization.

91. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’369 Patent, injured Plaintiff has 

suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to 

compensate for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs. 

92. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

93. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any continuing and/or future 

infringement of the ’369 Patent up until the date that Defendant ceases its infringing activities. 

COUNT TWO

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,936,190) 

94. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs above, the same as 

if set forth herein. 

95. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in 

particular under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 

96. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’190 Patent at least as of the 

service of the present complaint.

97. Accordingly, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, the ’190 Patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues 

to infringe Claims 1, 7, and 20 of the ’190 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or 

offering for sale (as identified in the served infringement contentions.

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

of equivalents, Claims 1, 7, and 20 of the ’190 Patent.

99. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the served infringement

contentions constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 317
First Amended Complaint

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

infringement.

103. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is 

enjoined by this Court. 

104. The ’190 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with 

Title 35 of the United States Code. 

106. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Plaintiff and is 

liable for infringement of the ’190 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

107. Defendant has committed these acts of literal infringement, or infringement under 

the doctrine of equivalents of the ’190 Patent, without license or authorization.

108. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’190 Patent, injured Plaintiff has 

suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to 

compensate for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs. 

109. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

110. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any continuing and/or future 

infringement of the ’190 Patent up until the date that Defendant ceases its infringing activities. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

114. Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by 

jury of any issues so triable by right.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to:

(a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all cases of action asserted herein;

(b) Enter an Order enjoining Defendant, its agents, officers, servants, employees, attorneys, 

and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receives notice of the order 

from further infringement of Symbology Patents (or, in the alternative, awarding Plaintiff running 

royalty from the time judgment going forward);

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 318
First Amended Complaint

(c) Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendants infringement in accordance with 

35 U.S.C. § 284;

(d) Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under law 

or equity; including treble damages for willful infringement. 

Dated: January 16, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

Randall Garteiser

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 35 Filed 01/16/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 319