THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MACY’S, INC.,

Defendant.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff files this complaint for patent infringement of four (4) patents against defendant

and 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 Macy’s, Inc. is corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Ohio with a regular and established place of business in this Judicial District at 6209 West Park 

Boulevard, Plano, TX 75093. Upon information and belief, Macy’s does business in Texas and 

in the Eastern District of Texas, directly or through intermediaries.

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, as well as attorney fees and costs. 

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

Question) and 1338(a) (Patents). 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous 

and systematic business contacts with the State of Texas including a multitude of licensed brick 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
Original Complaint 2

and mortar stores in this District. 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 of Patents in this District and in the State of Texas.

6. 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. 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.

7. On information and belief, Defendant maintains physical brick-and-mortar 

business locations in the State of Texas and within this District, retains employees specifically in 

this District for the purpose of servicing customers in this District, and generates substantial 

revenues from its business activities in this District. See Figure 1 below.

8. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas 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. 

9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because, 

among other things, Macy’s is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, Macy’s has 

a regular and established place of business in Texas and in this judicial district, Macy’s has 

purposely transacted business involving the accused products in this judicial district, including 

sales to one or more customers in Texas, and committed infringing acts complained of herein in 

this judicial district

PATENTS-IN-SUIT

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

8,424,752 (hereinafter “the ’752 Patent”), 8,651,369 (hereinafter “the ’369 Patent”), and 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2
Original Complaint 3

8,936,190 (collectively “the Symbology Patents”). The ’752 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1, the 

’369 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2, and the ’190 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.

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

compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.

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

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

13. 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.

14. Mr. Rothschild is a former presidential appointee to the High-Resolution Board 

for the United States under former President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Rothschild served 

Governors on technology boards, served as a special advisor to then Florida Secretary of 

Commerce John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, and served on the IT Florida Technology Board as an 

appointee of former Governor John Ellis “Jeb” Bush.

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

outstanding charities and institutions around the world.

16. The ’752 Patent contains eighteen claims including three independent claims and 

fifteen dependent claims.

17. 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. 

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

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

and twenty-five dependent claims.

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
Original Complaint 4

20. 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.

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

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

and twenty-five dependent claims.

23. 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.

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

25. 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 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.

26. 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. ’752 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4
Original Complaint 5

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

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; 705/80; 705/14.1; and 705/39.

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 ‘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 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 ’369 Patent are novel and nonCase 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5
Original Complaint 6

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 ’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).

34. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’752 Patent is no earlier than 

September 15, 2030.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6
Original Complaint 7

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 ’752 Patent are novel and nonobvious, 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.

38. 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).

39. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’752 Patent is no earlier than 

September 15, 2030.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7
Original Complaint 8

United States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’369 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 ’369 Patent are novel and nonobvious, 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 Examiner Trail.

43. 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).

44. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’369 Patent is no earlier than 

September 15, 2030.

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

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

otherwise provides QR codes associated with a website of Defendant (the “Accused 

Instrumentalities”), which infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘752 Patent, Claim 1 of the ’752

Patent, Claim 1 of the ’369 Patent, and Claim 1 of the ’190 Patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8
Original Complaint 9

COUNT ONE

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

46. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-59, the same as 

if set forth herein. 

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

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

48. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’752 Patent (Exhibit 1), at 

least as of the service of the present complaint.

49. 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 at least Claim 1, of the ’752 Patent by 

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

attached hereto as Exhibit 4) the Accused Instrumentalities.

50. 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 ’752 Patent, by 

having its employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

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

(Exhibit 4) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

52. Exhibit 4 includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 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 Instrumentalities 

incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of exemplary claim 1 of the ’752 Patent.

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

chart of Exhibit 4.

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

infringement.

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9
Original Complaint 10

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

enjoined by this Court. 

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

Title 35 of the United States Code. 

57. 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 1.

58. 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.

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

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

60. 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. 

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

62. 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) 

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

as if set forth herein. 

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

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

65. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’369 Patent (Exhibit 2), at 

least as of the service of the present complaint.

66. 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 at least Claim 1, of the ’369 Patent by 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10
Original Complaint 11

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

attached hereto as Exhibit 5) the Accused Instrumentalities.

67. 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.

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

(Exhibit 5) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

69. Exhibit 5 includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 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 all elements of exemplary claim 1 of the ’369 Patent.

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

chart of Exhibit 5.

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

infringement.

COUNT THREE

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

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

as if set forth herein. 

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

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

74. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’190 Patent (Exhibit 3), at 

least as of the service of the present complaint.

75. 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 at least Claim 1, of the ’190 Patent by 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11
Original Complaint 12

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

attached hereto as Exhibit 6) the Accused Instrumentalities.

76. 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.

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

(Exhibit 6) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

78. Exhibit 6 includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 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 exemplary claim 1 of the ’190 Patent.

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

chart of Exhibit 6.

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

infringement.

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

enjoined by this Court. 

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

Title 35 of the United States Code. 

83. 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 3.

84. 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.

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

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

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12
Original Complaint 13

86. 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. 

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

88. 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.

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

89. Plaintiff has had numerous communications with Defendant explaining his 

infringement of the patents-in-suit. 

90. Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff’s patents, had knowledge of these PatentsIn-Suit and knowingly continued to infringe Plaintiff’s patents without a license. Letters were 

sent to Defendant on two separate occasions. 

91. Plaintiff is seeking exemplary damages due to Defendant’s willful infringement, 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, based on its pre-suit and post filing of a complaint conduct. The 

Supreme Court has eliminated the objective-recklessness standard and instead, decided that “the 

subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced 

damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.” Halo 

Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93, No. 14–1513, at 10 (June 13, 2016). 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13
Original Complaint 14

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.

Dated: December 8, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@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-00583-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14