First Amended Complaint

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEXCOM, INC.,

Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-473-JRG

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff files this complaint for patent infringement of four (4) patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,992,773 (hereinafter “the ’773 Patent”), 8,424,752 (hereinafter “the ’752 Patent”), 8,651,369 

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

Patent is attached as Exhibit A, the ’752 Patent is attached as Exhibit B, the ’369 Patent is attached 

as Exhibit C, and the ’190 Patent is attached as Exhibit D. 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 Dexcom, Inc. is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of 

business at 6340 Sequence Drive, San Diego, CA 92121, hereinafter “Defendant.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. 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.

1 Expiration Date for at least the majority of Patents-in-suit is no earlier than September 15, 

2030.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 224
First Amended Complaint

4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal 

Question) and 1338(a) (Patents). 

5. Venue is proper and convenient as Dexcom has asserted its own patent rights 

recently in this District against one of its continuous glucose monitoring system competitors, 

named Abbott Laboratories. See Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Case No. 6:21-CV690 (W.D. Tex. 2021). 

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. 

PATENTS-IN-SUIT

7. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,992,773 (hereinafter “the ’773 Patent”), 8,424,752 (hereinafter “the ’752 Patent”), 8,651,369 

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

Patent is attached as Exhibit A, the ’752 Patent is attached as Exhibit B, the ’369 Patent is attached 

as Exhibit C, and the ’190 Patent is attached as Exhibit D.

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

compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.

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

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

10. 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.

11. Mr. Rothschild chairs the Rothschild Family Foundation, which endows 

outstanding charities and institutions around the world.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 225
First Amended Complaint

12. The ’773 Patent contains eighteen claims including three independent claims and 

fifteen dependent claims.

13. 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 nonroutine. 

14. Plaintiff alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’773 Patent.

15. The ’752 Patent contains twenty-eight claims including three independent claims 

and twenty-five dependent claims.

16. The priority date of the ’752 Patent is at least as early September 15, 2010. As of 

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

17. Plaintiff alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’752 Patent.

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

and twenty-five dependent claims.

19. 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 nonroutine.

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

21. 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 ’773 Patent, Abstract. According to one embodiment a method 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 226
First Amended Complaint

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 

prior art in the following US Classifications: 235/375; 235/379; 705/80; 705/14.1; and 705/39.

27. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’773 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 227
First Amended Complaint

28. 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 ’773 Patent to issue. In so doing, it 

is presumed that Examiner Trail used her knowledge of the art when examining the claims. K/S 

Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further presumed 

that Examiner Trail had experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner properly 

acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the ’773 Patent 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 ’773 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited 

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 Examiner Trail.

29. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’773 Patent is no earlier than 

September 15, 2030.

30. The ’752 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Allyson 

Trail. During the examination of the ’752 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for 

prior art in the following US Classifications: 235/375; 235/379; 705/14.1; 705/39; and 705/80.

31. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’752 Patent, 

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

references found during the search: US 7,992,773; 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 ’752 Patent to issue. In so doing, 

it is presumed that Examiner Trail used her knowledge of the art when examining the claims. K/S 

Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further presumed 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 228
First Amended Complaint

that Examiner Trail had experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner properly 

acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the ’752 Patent 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 ’752 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited 

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 Examiner Trail.

33. The claims of the ’752 Patent were all properly issued, and are valid and 

enforceable for the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable 

for purposes of seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics 

Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(“[A]n expired patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does 

have value beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an 

action for past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations 

omitted).

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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 Patent to issue. In so doing, 

it is presumed that Examiner used her knowledge of the art when examining the claims. K/S Himpp 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 229
First Amended Complaint

v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further presumed that 

Examiner had experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner properly acted in 

accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the ’369 Patent 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 non-cited 

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.

37. The claims of the ’369 Patent were all properly issued, and are valid and 

enforceable for the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable 

for purposes of seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics 

Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(“[A]n expired patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does 

have value beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an 

action for past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations 

omitted).

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

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

provides to its users QR codes as part of its Dexcom G6 and G7 systems, which include their 

respective G6 and G7 App that Defendant requires user to install on a smartphone (the “Accused 

Instrumentalities”), which infringe the claims identified in Exhibits F, G, and H, as summarized in 

the chart below:

Asserted Patent Asserted Claims Count No. in Complaint 

(Dkt. 1)

U.S. Patent No. 8,424,752

(“the ’752 Patent”)

1, 5, 7, 16, 24 Count One

U.S. Patent No. 8,651,369 1, 5, 7, 16, 24 Count Two

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 230
First Amended Complaint

(“the ’369 Patent”)

U.S. Patent No. 8,936,190

(“the ’190 Patent”)

1, 5, 7, 16, 20 Count Three

SUBJECT MATER ELIGIBILITY

39. Plaintiff’s asserted claims as identified in Exhibits F, G, and H are novel and nonconventional, and also not well known in the industry. Indeed, one of the improvements over the 

prior art was in the constant screening or running of the scanner for a code to link to a particular 

user application offered by the user as explained in the prosecution history of the parent patent 

application that issued as the ’773 patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art upon review of the 

publicly available prosecution history would understand that the ’752 Patent, 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”), entitled “System and Method for 

Presenting Information about an Object on a Portable Electronic Device” the same title of the 

asserted patents below in Counts 1, 2, and 3. 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) [incorporated herein by reference]. As a result of applicant’s 

amendment to Claim 1, every claim of 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 and in the background. 

Additionally, the ’773 Patent, the ’752 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 “visual 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 231
First Amended Complaint

detection applications” in the Asserted Patents, and a proper construction of this phrase is required 

to properly evaluate the merits of Dexcom’s “abstract concept” arguments. See Entropic 

Commc'ns, LLC v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 222CV00125JRGRSP, 2023 WL 8535214, at *1 

(E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 222CV00125JRGRSP, 2023 

WL 8534956 a*1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2023).

COUNT ONE

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,424,752) 

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

if set forth herein. 

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

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

43. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’752 Patent (Exhibit B), at 

least as of the service of the present complaint.

44. Accordingly, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, the ’752 Patent in 

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

to infringe one or more claims, including claims 1, 5, 7, 16, and 24 of the ’752 Patent by making, 

using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale (as identified in the Claim Chart attached hereto 

as Exhibit F) the Accused Instrumentalities.

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

of equivalents, one or more claims, including claims 1, 5, 7, 16, and 24 of the ’752 Patent, by 

having its employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

46. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached Claim Chart

(Exhibit F) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

47. Exhibit F includes at least one chart comparing claims 1, 5, 7, 16, and 24 of the 

’752 Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities. As set forth in this chart, the Accused 

Instrumentalities practice the technology claimed by the ’752 Patent. Accordingly, the Accused 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 232
First Amended Complaint

Instrumentalities incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of claims 1, 5, 7, 16, and 24 of the 

’752 Patent.

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

of Exhibit F.

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

infringement.

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

enjoined by this Court. 

51. The ’752 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with 

Title 35 of the United States Code. 

52. A copy of the ’752 Patent, titled “System and Method for Presenting Information 

About an Object on a Portable Electronic Device,” is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

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

liable for infringement of the ’752 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

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

the doctrine of equivalents of the ’752 Patent, without license or authorization.

55. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’752 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. 

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

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

infringement of the ’752 Patent up until the date that Defendant ceases its infringing activities. 

COUNT TWO

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

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

if set forth herein. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 233
First Amended Complaint

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

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

60. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’369 Patent (Exhibit C), at 

least as of the service of the present complaint.

61. 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 one or more claims, including claims 1, 5, 7, 16, 24 of the ’369 Patent by making, using, 

importing, selling, and/or offering for sale (as identified in the Claim Chart attached hereto as 

Exhibit G) the Accused Instrumentalities.

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

of equivalents, one or more claims, including claims 1, 5, 7, 16, 24 of the ’369 Patent, by having 

its employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

63. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached Claim Chart

(Exhibit G) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

64. Exhibit G includes at least one chart comparing claims 1, 5, 7, 16, 24 of the ’369

Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities. As set forth in this chart, the Accused Instrumentalities 

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

incorporated in this chart satisfy claims 1, 5, 7, 16, 24 of the ’369 Patent.

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

of Exhibit G.

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

infringement.

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

enjoined by this Court. 

68. 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-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 234
First Amended Complaint

69. A copy of the ’369 Patent, titled “System and Method for Presenting Information 

About an Object on a Portable Electronic Device,” is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

70. 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.

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

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

72. 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. 

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

74. 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 THREE

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

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

if set forth herein. 

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

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

77. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’190 Patent (Exhibit D), at 

least as of the service of the present complaint.

78. 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 one or more claims, including claims 1, 5, 7, 16 and 20 of the ’190 Patent by making, 

using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale (as identified in the Claim Chart attached hereto 

as Exhibit H) the Accused Instrumentalities.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 235
First Amended Complaint

79. 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 ’190 Patent, by having its 

employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

80. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached Claim Chart

(Exhibit H) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

81. Exhibit H includes infringement charts of claims 1, 5, 7, 16 and 20 of the ’190

Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities. As set forth in this chart, the Accused Instrumentalities 

practice the technology claimed by the ’190 Patent. Accordingly, the Accused Instrumentalities 

incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of claims 1, 5, 7, 16 and 20 of the ’190 Patent.

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

of Exhibit H.

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

infringement.

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

enjoined by this Court. 

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

Title 35 of the United States Code. 

86. A copy of the ’190 Patent, titled “System and Method for Presenting Information 

About an Object on a Portable Electronic Device,” is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

87. 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.

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

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

89. 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. 

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

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 236
First Amended Complaint

91. 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 

92. 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);

(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, if alleged.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 237
First Amended Complaint

Dated: February 2, 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-00473-JRG Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 238