Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/174428195/Intellectual-Ventures-et-al-v-T-Mobile-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-02-11 16:03:20
Document Index: 765568474

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Intellectual Ventures et. al. v. T-Mobile et. al.
UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicScribd Selects BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsTop Shelf ProductionsValiant Comics ZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsP. 1Intellectual Ventures et. al. v. T-Mobile et. al.Intellectual Ventures et. al. v. T-Mobile et. al.|Views: 48|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc. et. al.. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9fN for more info.Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc. et. al.. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9fN for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Oct 08, 2013Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/174428195/Intellectual-Ventures-et-al-v-T-Mobile-et-al10/08/2013pdftextoriginalIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC AND INTELLECTUAL VENTURESII LLC, Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendants.
COMPLAINT ALLEGING PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II LLC allege the following against Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. (d/b/a/ T-Mobile US, Inc.) (collectively, “T-Mobile”):
place of business located in Bellevue, Washington. 3. Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc., formerly named MetroPCS Communications, Inc.,
is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006. T-Mobile US, Inc. is the U.S. wireless operation of Deutsche Telekom AG.
Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of T-Mobile US, Inc.,
is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006.
1338(a) because this action arises under the U.S. patent laws, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile because it has committed acts
of infringement in this District in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, and has placed infringing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products are used and sold in this District. These acts have caused and continue to cause injury to Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II within the District. T-Mobile derives substantial revenue from the sale of infringing services and products distributed within the District, and/or expects or should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within the District, and derives substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce. 8. T-Mobile maintains places of business within the District from which it sells
products or services to residents of the District. Additionally, T-Mobile provides telecommunications services to customers through base stations, switching equipment and other components of their telecommunications networks, which are located in the District. 2
Further, T-Mobile is subject to this Court's jurisdiction by virtue of its
incorporation in Delaware and its availing itself of the laws and protections of this District. 10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
right, title, and interest in the ’783 Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
On September 11, 2007, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127 (“the ’127
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 30. On March 12, 2013, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 8,396,079 (“the ’079
T-Mobile’s Telecommunications Network 40. T-Mobile is in the business of providing wireless phone services to customers
throughout the United States, including the State of Delaware, under its T-Mobile and MetroPCS brands. The future of T-Mobile’s business and the subject of this lawsuit is T-Mobile’s Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) wireless network. 41. T-Mobile recently engaged in a series of business combinations with former
competitor MetroPCS. The purpose of these combinations was to strengthen T-Mobile’s spectrum position for its roll-out of 4G LTE services, particularly in major metropolitan areas, and to drive both its T-Mobile and MetroPCS brands onto a common LTE network. By taking advantage of the resources, positioning, coverage, and spectrum provided by the T-MobileMetroPCS mergers, T-Mobile has positioned itself to challenge other LTE wireless giants like AT&T and Verizon for the U.S. wireless market. T-Mobile also plans to expand the MetroPCS no-contract model into new geographies to further grow the MetroPCS brand. 42. T-Mobile has been enormously successful, especially since the T-Mobile-
MetroPCS mergers. By the end of the second quarter of 2013, T-Mobile had approximately 44 million wireless customers nationwide. It has launched its 4G LTE network, and the network includes 116 metropolitan areas, covering 157 million people. T-Mobile’s annual revenue for 2012 was nearly $25 billion. 7
T-Mobile’s ability to employ LTE service is critical to its business. The primary
impetus for the T-Mobile-MetroPCS mergers was a substantial increase in the demand for wireless service in the United States. T-Mobile’s LTE network is critical to driving down its cost of providing service, to maintaining and growing its customer base, and to promoting the health of the company. T-Mobile has no other viable option than deploying LTE. 44. Each passing day, T-Mobile adds to its LTE customer base by converting 3G
customers to its 4G LTE network and by taking customers from third parties who lack LTE capabilities. Each passing day, T-Mobile also competes unfairly by using its substantial market power and muscle to push aside competitors, which it can do because of its substantial financial resources and because it refuses to pay royalties for the patent rights necessary to legally employ its LTE technology. 45. T-Mobile is aware that there are numerous patents in the LTE space. Yet, upon
information and belief, T-Mobile has no policy in place to obtain rights from patent holders to use their LTE technology. Upon information and belief, this is by design, and T-Mobile employs a corporate policy of ignoring the risk of patent infringement and willfully infringing LTE patents. In this fashion, T-Mobile has been able to keep its costs down and to compete unfairly against companies who lawfully take licenses to the patents in suit. 46. In this evolving marketplace, which is highly cost-competitive, a competitor who
has lawfully taken a license to the patents in suit is operating under a competitive disadvantage to T-Mobile, which refuses to pay for the accused technology. A damage award would be insufficient to vindicate the rights of Intellectual Ventures I and its current and future licensees, and Intellectual Ventures II and its current and future licensees, and to restore the market to the condition it would have been in had T-Mobile taken a license.
COUNT I (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’248 Patent) 47. 48. Paragraphs 1-46 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’248 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 49. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s infringement
of the ’248 Patent.
COUNT II (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’831 Patent) 50. 51. Paragraphs 1-49 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’831 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 52. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s infringement
of the ’831 Patent.
COUNT III (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’783 Patent) 53. 54. Paragraphs 1-52 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’783 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 55. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s infringement
of the ’783 Patent. 9
COUNT IV (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’408 Patent) 56. 57. Paragraphs 1-55 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’408 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by making, using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services are T-Mobile’s cellular services, including, but not limited to, cellular services that implement LTE in wireless base stations. 58. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s infringement
of the ’408 Patent.
COUNT V (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’153 Patent) 59. 60. Paragraphs 1-58 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’153 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 61. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’153 Patent.
COUNT VI (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’557 Patent) 62. 63. Paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’557 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 10
Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’557 Patent.
COUNT VII (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’993 Patent) 65. 66. Paragraphs 1-64 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’993 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 67. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’993 Patent.
COUNT VIII (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’127 Patent) 68. 69. Paragraphs 1-67 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’127 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by making, using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 70. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’127 Patent.
COUNT IX (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’353 Patent) 71. Paragraphs 1-70 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
T-Mobile has infringed the ’353 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 73. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’353 Patent.
COUNT X (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’079 Patent) 74. 75. Paragraphs 1-73 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein T-Mobile has infringed the ’079 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 76. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’079 Patent.
COUNT XI (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’431 Patent) 77. 78. Paragraphs 1-76 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. T-Mobile has infringed the ’431 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 79. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’431 Patent. COUNT XII (T-Mobile’s Infringement of the ’994 Patent) 80.
Paragraphs 1-79 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. 12
T-Mobile has infringed the ’994 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by using or performing one or more of the claims without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Among the infringing services is T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network services. 82. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of T-Mobile’s
infringement of the ’994 Patent.
6,370,153; 5,963,557; 8,310,993; 7,269,127; 7,848,353; 8,396,079; 7,787,431; and 7,385,994 are valid and enforceable. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’248 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’831 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’783 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’408 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’153 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’557 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’993 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’127 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’353 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’079 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’431 Patent; A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’994 Patent;
An order enjoining T-Mobile and its officers, agents, servants and employees,
appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for T-Mobile’s past infringement, and any continuing or future infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, up until the date such judgment is entered, including pre and post judgment interest, costs, and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and, if necessary to adequately compensate Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II for T-Mobile’s infringement, an accounting: a. that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II be awarded the reasonable attorneys’ fees that they incur in prosecuting this action; b. that Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II be awarded costs and expenses that they incur in prosecuting this action; and c. that Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems just and proper.