Source: https://vi.scribd.com/document/400594263/Optis-Wireless-sue-Apple
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 23:04:40+00:00

Document:
Lennon Image Technologies v. Safilo America Et. Al.
Mobile Logistics v. Atlas RFID Holdings et. al.
Lexington Luminance v. Amazon.com Et. Al.
Corning Optical Communications Wireless v. Solid et. al.
Kowa Company et. al. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals et. al.
Asserted Patents” or “the Patents-in-Suit”).
seeking a judgment of and relief for patent infringement by Apple.
principal place of business at 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 250, Plano, TX 75024.
United States, including within this District.
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, and 1367.
10. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
The Plaintiffs own all rights to the ’154 patent necessary to bring this action.
The Plaintiffs own all rights to the ’332 patent necessary to bring this action.
the ’557 patent necessary to bring this action.
necessary to bring this action.
the ’290 patent necessary to bring this action.
not currently licensed to practice the Patents-in-Suit.
21. The Patents-in-Suit are valid and enforceable.
the wireless communication development—to enter the market and sell smartphones.
worldwide interoperability between networks, devices and network operators.
ETSI) to practicing the LTE Standard.
term is defined by ETSI) to practicing the LTE Standard.
defined by ETSI) to practicing the LTE Standard.
essential to practicing the LTE Standard.
Optis Wireless, Unwired Planet International, and Unwired Planet.
Plaintiffs’ good faith efforts to license their essential patents to Apple on FRAND terms.
patents and technical details evidencing the essentiality of the Plaintiffs’ LTE essential patents.
valuable intellectual property, including the Patents-in-Suit.
protecting their patent rights in the United States.
reasonable in accepting them when they are offered.
capable models in Apple’s iPhone, iPad and Watch lines of products.
beginning with the iPhone 5 supports the LTE standard.
Watch models supports the LTE standard.
products that infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement.
including, but not limited to, at least the Apple Accused Products.
TS 36.201 section 4 and 3GPP TS 36.211 section 6.
described in the LTE standard, including but not limited to 3GPP TS 36.212 sections 4.2 and 5.3.
configuring transmission information for the downlink control channel via higher layer signaling.
3GPP TS 36.331 sections 4.4 and 5.4 and 3GPP TS 36.213 section 7.1.
shared channel data according to the transmission scheme information included in the format.
section 7.1 and 3GPP TS 36.212 section 5.3.3.
not limited to 3GPP TS 36.213 section 7.1 and 3GPP TS 36.212 section 5.3.3.
60. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’154 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’154 Patent.
described in the LTE Standard, including but not limited to in 3GPP TS 36.201 sections 1 and 4.
in the LTE Standard, including but not limited to in 3GPP TS 36.213 section 9.1.1.
72. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’332 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’332 Patent.
3GPP TS 36.201 §§ 1, 4.1.
of physical radio resources comprising a control channel signal destined to the mobile terminal.
in 3GPP TS 36.213 § 8.
TS 36.213 § 8, TS 36.212 § 5.3.
3GPP TS 36.213 § 8, TS 36.212 § 5.3.
3GPP TS 36.213 § 8.6.
limited to in 3GPP TS 36.213 § 8.6.
described in the LTE Standard, including but not limited to in 3GPP TS 36.213 § 8.6.
87. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’284 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’284 Patent.
not limited to in 3GPP TS 36.321 section 5.1, 3GPP TS 36.331 sections 5.1, 5.2, and 6.3.
4.1.2, and 3GPP TS 32.425 sections 4.5.5 and A.5.
98. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’557 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’557 Patent.
TS 36.213 section 7.2, 3GPP TS 36.211 section 6.3.4, and 3GPP TS 36.331 section 6.3.2.
limited to in 3GPP TS 36.211 section 6.10.
108. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’774 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’774 Patent.
including but not limited to in 3GPP TS 36.212 section 5.2.2.
3GPP TS 36.211 section 5.2.1.
TS 36.211 section 4.1-4.2, 3GPP TS 36.211 section 5.2.1, and 3GPP TS 36.212 section 5.2.2.
sections 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.5.2.1.2, 5.3.4, 5.5.2, and 3GPP TS 36.300 section 5.2.4.
3GPP TS 36.211 section 4.1 and 3GPP TS 36.211 section 5.2.1.
121. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’833 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’833 Patent.
3GPP TS 36.300 § 5.1.5 and 3GPP TS 36.213 § 7.1.
3GPP TS 36.212 § 5.3.3.1.
TS 36.213 § 7.1.5, and 3GPP TS 36.212 § 5.3.3.1.4.
3GPP TS 36.213 § 7.1, and 3GPP TS 36.212 § 5.3.3.1.4.
134. Apple also indirectly infringes the ’290 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C.
direct infringement of the ’290 Patent.
license the Plaintiffs’ standard essential patents on the FRAND terms the Plaintiffs have offered.
inconsistency, should be subordinate to the UK FRAND Proceedings.
damages at least in the form of reasonable royalties.
143. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so triable.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 8
 § 5
 § 8
 § 5
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 § 5
 § 7
 § 5
 § 7
 § 5
 § 7
 § 5