Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/147950022/Ruckus-Wireless-Inc
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 13:06:36
Document Index: 789023253

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 2201', '§ 100', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 102', '§ 285', 'art51', 'art10', 'art10', 'art2010']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS __________________________________________ ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.) ) INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
Civil Action No.1:13-cv-00504 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Ruckus Wireless, Inc. (“Ruckus”) files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”) against Defendant Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC (“IWS”). Ruckus seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, declaring United States Patent Nos. 5,912,895 (the “’895 Patent”), 6,327,264 (the “’264 Patent”) and 6,587,473 (the “’473 Patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”) to be not infringed and to be invalid.
1. Plaintiff Ruckus is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
350 West Java Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. 2. IWS is a Texas Limited Liability Company with a purported principal place of
business at 800 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 200, Georgetown, TX 78626-5848. IWS also has a registered agent, BlumbergExcelsior Corporate Services, Inc., located at 814 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 303, Austin, Texas 78701. See Franchise Tax Account Status on file with the Texas Office of the Comptroller, attached as Exhibit “A;” see also Records from the Texas
Secretary of State, attached as Exhibit “B.” On information and belief, IWS is a shell entity that has been organized, in part, to hide the identity of the individuals and/or entities who control and are participating in, and/or obtaining benefit from, the activities of IWS and to make it more difficult to determine the appropriate venue for any case in which IWS is involved.
3. Ruckus brings this declaratory judgment action to protect the purchasers of
Ruckus’ products from the most recent recurring scourge on this country’s patent system. IWS is a patent assertion entity that, on information and belief, has been set up to monetize patents by filing strike suits against mere end users of 802.11 standard compliant products (also known as Wi-Fi products) for the purpose of obtaining licensing and settlement amounts to which they are not entitled. As explained in detail herein, rather than seek to license its patents to Ruckus and other manufactures of Wi-Fi compliant products, IWS instead sent demand letters to end users that have purchased Ruckus products that are compliant with the Wi-Fi standards. Within two weeks of sending the letters, IWS filed 41 lawsuits against end users of Ruckus products and/or other similar products. In turn, Ruckus received indemnity demands in connection with these lawsuits. 4. On information and belief, IWS is pursuing a litigation strategy of suing retail
purchasers, as opposed to the actual manufacturers of the standard compliant Wi-Fi products (e.g., Ruckus), in order to leverage the cost of litigation against targets that do not have the resources, inclination or technical knowledge about the products or standards necessary to defend against IWS’ allegations. On information and belief, IWS is targeting this class of users in order to obtain licenses and settlements that bear no reasonable relation to the value, if any, or scope of the patents-in-suit.
Although the 41 lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice on June 7 and June
10, 2013, on information and belief, IWS is intent on re-filing these lawsuits against these retail purchasers after correcting one or more procedural deficiencies. 6. IWS’ infringement allegations are not purchaser-specific and, instead, are directed
at the design and operation of the accused 802.11 standard compliant Wi-Fi products offered by Ruckus and others. In the letters sent by IWS from its offices in this judicial district, IWS alleges infringement based on the accused infringers’ purchase and use of the Wi-Fi products. See e.g., Letter dated April 10, 2013 from IWS, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “C.” Notably, this letter reflects a “copy and paste” strategy pursuant to which all the purchasers are accused of the identical acts of infringement based on a generic purchase and use theory. 7. As evidenced by the recent editorial in the New York Times authored, in part, by
Chief Judge Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, IWS’ litigation tactics of pursuing claims against end purchasers, rather than product suppliers, if allowed to go forward, would be an improper use of the U.S. Federal Court system and an undue burden on the Courts and the business community. As Judge Rader states: The onslaught of litigation brought by “patent trolls” — who typically buy up a slew of patents, then sue anyone and everyone who might be using or selling the claimed inventions — has slowed the development of new products, increased costs for businesses and consumers, and clogged our judicial system. Their business plan is simple: trolls (intellectual-property lawyers use less evocative terms like “non-practicing entities” and “patentassertion entities”) make money by threatening companies with expensive lawsuits and then using that cudgel, rather than the merits of a case, to extract a financial settlement. In the apt summary of President Obama, who on Tuesday announced a plan to stave off frivolous patent litigation, trolls just want to “hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort some money.” * * *
In the meantime, vexatious patent litigation continues to grind through our already crowded courts, costing defendants and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year and delaying justice for those who legitimately need a fair hearing of their claims. Trolls, in fact, filed the majority of the roughly 4,700 patent suits in 2012 — and many of those were against small companies and start-ups that often can’t afford to fight back. * 8. * *
Accordingly, Ruckus brings this Declaratory Judgment action because it already
has received indemnity demands related to the purchase of its products because of IWS’ claims and has the expectation of receiving additional indemnity demands. See Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecomms. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ruckus’ request for a declaratory
judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 10. IWS’ threat letters and the cases it filed allege infringement of the patents-in-suit
by, among others, the purchasers of Ruckus’ wireless access points that comply with certain amendments of the IEEE 802.11 standard. In turn, these purchasers made indemnity demands that are directed to Ruckus. Thus, the allegations made by IWS in its various filed cases and in its threat letters give rise to an actual and justiciable controversy between Ruckus and IWS as to the noninfringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. 11. IWS’ lawsuits and infringement allegations threaten actual and imminent injury to
Ruckus that can be redressed by judicial relief and that injury is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Absent a declaration of
noninfringement and/or invalidity, IWS’ continued wrongful assertions of infringement related to the use of Ruckus’ products will cause Ruckus harm. 12. IWS is subject to general and specific personal jurisdiction in this judicial district
based upon its purposeful, systematic, and continuous contacts with Texas, including forming under the laws of Texas, maintaining an address in and sending threat letters from this judicial district and maintaining a registered agent in this judicial district. 13. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because IWS resides in this
judicial district and, as described below, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in this judicial district and because IWS is subject to personal jurisdiction within this judicial district.
14. Ruckus is a global supplier of advanced wireless systems including wireless
access points. Ruckus’ wireless access points are purchased by various enterprises, including hotels and restaurants, which in turn offer Wi-Fi, or wireless Internet service, to their customers or use it internally in their businesses. 15. Among the wireless access points sold by Ruckus are access points that are
compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standard. 16. Upon information and belief, IWS is a non-practicing entity organized for the
specific purpose of pursing infringement lawsuits and improperly shielding the real parties in interest from exposure and liability associated with the lawsuits, such as may result from an imposition of costs or attorneys’ fees that may be obtained by the defendants in the lawsuits, and/or to hide prior actions of, or obligations that might be owed by, the real parties in interest. IWS does not commercialize any products or services embodying the patents-in-suit.
IWS purports to be the owner of the ’895 Patent. The ‘895 Patent is entitled
“Information network access apparatus and methods for communicating information packets via telephone lines” and issued on June 15, 1999. A copy of the ’895 Patent is attached as Exhibit “D.” 18. IWS purports to be the owner of the ’264 Patent. The ‘264 Patent is entitled
“Information network access apparatus and methods for communicating information packets via telephone lines” and issued on December 4, 2001. A copy of the ’264 Patent is attached as Exhibit “E.” 19. IWS purports to be the owner of the ’473 Patent. The ‘473 Patent is entitled
“Information network access apparatus and methods for communicating information packets via telephone lines” and issued on July 1, 2003. A copy of the ’473 Patent is attached as Exhibit “F.” 20. IWS’ ownership claims appear to flow from a series of recent assignments from
multiple limited liability companies, allegedly culminating with an assignment by Generation Wireless Solutions LLC to IWS on March 5, 2013, i.e., less than two months before IWS filed suit against purchasers of Ruckus’ products. A copy of the assignment records available on the USPTO’s website is attached as Exhibit “G.” 21. IWS is represented by Farney Daniels PC, a law firm located in Georgetown,
Texas. Attorneys associated with Farney Daniels are listed as correspondents on the Patent Assignment Abstracts of Title for the patents-in-suit. Upon information and belief, Farney Daniels represented IWS in connection with the assignment of the patents-in-suit to IWS. On information and belief, in addition to representing non-practicing entities, the Farney Daniels law
firm and/or at least one of its principles and/or that principle’s relatives own or control other nonpracticing entities that currently are suing various other entities. 22. IWS’ filings with the Texas Secretary of State and other records on file with the
Texas Office of the Comptroller all show that IWS’ actual place of business is the same address from which the assignment of the patents-in-suit was negotiated and from which its demand letters were sent in April, 2013, i.e,. 800 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 200, Georgetown, TX 786265848. This also is the address for the Farney Daniels law firm in Georgetown, TX. Because IWS has concealed the identity of the real parties in interest involved in its licensing and litigation business, Ruckus is unable to determine whether the Farney Daniels law firm is a real party in interest behind IWS. 23. Although, IWS alleged in its recently dismissed lawsuits that its place of business
is 555 Republic Drive, Suite 200, Plano Texas 75074, this is a sham address and contradicted by IWS’ filings with the State of Texas. Upon information and belief, IWS has alleged a place of business at 555 Republic Drive, Suite 200, Plano Texas 75074 solely for the purpose of fraudulently generating venue in the Eastern District of Texas. 24. IWS’ name does not appear anywhere at 555 Republic Drive, Plano Texas 75074
and, based on investigation, IWS does not maintain a permanent presence at 555 Republic Drive, Suite 200, Plano Texas 75074. 25. On April 24, 2013, IWS commenced 41 patent infringement suits against various
defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of one or more of the patentsin-suit. 26. IWS sued, among others, entities that purchased Ruckus wireless access points.
The Complaints filed by IWS all make similar allegations, alleging infringement
based upon defendants’ alleged conduct related to making, using, offering to sell, and selling the use of components in an IEEE 802.11 wireless network. See e.g., Complaint filed in Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC v. Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC, Case No. 2:13-CV-308 (E.D. Tex.); Complaint filed in Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC v. La Quinta Inn Worldwide LLC et al, Case No. 2:13-CV-342 (E.D. Tex.); Complaint filed in Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC v.
Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:13:cv00309 (E.D. TX); Complaint filed in Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC v. Heritage Inn Number 7, LP, et al, Case No.13:cv-00343 (E.D. TX). Copies of the
Complaints filed in these actions are attached as Exhibits “H”-“K” respectively. 28. IWS dismissed each of the lawsuits it filed without prejudice and, upon
information and belief, is intent on re-filing those lawsuits against, among others, purchasers of Ruckus’ products. 29. Immediately prior to initiating these lawsuits, IWS sent demand letters to the
parties it sued (not all of which are purchasers of Ruckus products). The demand letters are virtually identical, alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit based upon the use and operation of the accused parties’ “802.11 wireless networks.” See e.g., Letter dated April 10, 2013 from IWS, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “C.” 30. Upon information and belief, the return address for the letters sent by IWS is
IWS’ business address at 800 S. Austin Ave., Suite 200, Georgetown, Texas 78626 and the letters were mailed from zip code 78626 – the zip code for Georgetown, Texas. The letters were signed by Paul Heath, who is a member of Auctus Capital Investments, LLC, which claims to be the manager for IWS.
For the parties that IWS sued or threatened with suit and that purchased Ruckus
wireless access points, access to those parties’ 802.11 wireless networks may be facilitated, in whole or in part, by an access point sold by Ruckus. 32. Ruckus received several demands from one or more of the parties sued by IWS,
based on agreements and/or the UCC and related to IWS' patent infringement claims, that IWS, as the manufacturer of wireless access points used by those parties, defend and indemnify those parties against IWS’ infringement claims. See e.g., Letter dated May 6, 2013 from James E. Youngblood to Selina Yo, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “L.”
Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement of the ’895 Patent 33. fully herein. 34. No claim of the ’895 Patent has been or is infringed, either directly or indirectly, Ruckus incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though set forth
by Ruckus or the purchasers of Ruckus’ products through their use of Ruckus products. 35. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between IWS and Ruckus to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that Ruckus has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the ’895 Patent.
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’895 Patent 36. fully herein. 37. The claims of the ’895 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with the Ruckus incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though set forth
requirements of patentability as specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including, without limitation,
35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or based on other judicially-created bases for invalidation. 38. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between IWS and Ruckus to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’895 Patent are invalid.
Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement of the ’264 Patent 39. fully herein. 40. No claim of the ’264 Patent has been or is infringed, either directly or indirectly, Ruckus incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though set forth
by Ruckus or the purchasers of Ruckus’ products through their use of Ruckus products. 41. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between IWS and Ruckus to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that Ruckus has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the ’264 Patent.
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’264 Patent 42. fully herein. 43. The claims of the ’264 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with the Ruckus incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though set forth
requirements of patentability as specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or based on other judicially-created bases for invalidation.
As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between IWS and Ruckus to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’264 Patent are invalid.
Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement of the ’473 Patent 45. fully herein. 46. No claim of the ’473 Patent has been or is infringed, either directly or indirectly, Ruckus incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though set forth
by Ruckus or the purchasers of Ruckus’ products through their use of Ruckus products. 47. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between IWS and Ruckus to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that Ruckus has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the ’473 Patent.
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’473 Patent 48. fully herein. 49. The claims of the ’473 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with the Ruckus incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though set forth
requirements of patentability as specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or based on other judicially-created bases for invalidation. 50. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between IWS and Ruckus to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’473 Patent are invalid.
WHEREFORE, Ruckus prays for: (a) A declaration that Ruckus and the purchasers of Ruckus’ products have not
infringed and are not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’895, ’264, and ’473 Patents; (b) (c) A declaration that each claim of the ’895, ’264, and ’473 Patents are invalid; An order that IWS and each of its officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and any
persons in active concert or participation with them are restrained and enjoined from further prosecuting or instituting any action against Ruckus or the purchasers of Ruckus’ products claiming that the ’895, ’264, and ’473 Patents are infringed or from representing that Ruckus’ products or their use in the networks operated by the purchasers of those products infringe the ’895, ’264, and ’473 Patents; (d) (d) (e) circumstances. A declaration that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; An award to Ruckus of its costs and attorneys’ fees; Such other relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just under the
Ruckus demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully Submitted, Dated: June 14, 2013 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC. /s/ Thomas W. Sankey Thomas W. Sankey Texas State Bar No. 17635670 twsankey@duanemorris.com Diana M. Sangalli Texas State Bar No. 24033926 dmsangalli@duanemorris.com DUANE MORRIS LLP 1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77056-3166 Tel: 713-402-3900 Fax: 713-402-3901 Of Counsel (Applications for Pro Hac Admission Pending): Woody Jameson wjameson@duanemorris.com Matthew S. Yungwirth msyungwirth@duanemorris.com DUANE MORRIS LLP Suite 2000 1075 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: 404-253-6900 Fax: 404-253-6901 Jeffrey S. Pollack jspollack@duanemorris.com DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020
Ruckus Wireless, Inc. by PriorSmart51 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00504: Ruckus Wireless, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http...Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00504: Ruckus Wireless, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8B4 for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedSquare v. Protegrityby PriorSmartBurton v. INCA Empireby PriorSmartHospira v. Ivera Medical Et. Al.by PatentBlastIn Re: Bear Creek Technologies Inc. ('722) Patent Litigationby PriorSmartBryan W. Nickerson, Jr. v. Josef Kutschera, A. G. Birkenruth, the Tidewater Oil Company, 390 F.2d 812, 3rd Cir. (1968)by Scribd Government DocsDjh Npe Patent Enforcement v0.4by vikramnmbaDrew Chemical Company, 522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036 v. Hercules Incorporated, 380 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017, 407 F.2d 360, 2d Cir. (1969)by Scribd Government DocsDriveTime Automotive Group v. Lodsysby PriorSmartWhatsApp v. Intercarrier Communicationsby PatentBlastIn Re Web Vent Ionby sstithamMaxim Integrated Products v. Wells Fargoby PriorSmartSpanx - Amended Complaint (N.D. Ga.)by slbursteinShoom v. Source 3 Systemsby PriorSmartDis-Tran Wood Products v. Brooks Manufacturing Companyby PriorSmartNexans Inc. v. Belden Inc., Civ. No. 12-1491-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 6, 2013).by YCSTBlog76by sabatino123Hanesbrands v. Forever 21by PriorSmartMatson, Inc. DBA ACF Tarp and Awning v. Cowboy Containments Et. Al.by PatentBlastHeathcote Holdings v. L&#039;Orealby PriorSmart10.01175.Order.5.20.10by woodypollackGlobal Crossing Telecommunications v. Rates Technologyby PriorSmartJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. American Traffic Solutionsby PriorSmart10-311by Aerst2Adaptix v. Pantech et. al.by PriorSmart2010-1117 Order Re Exceptionalby PATracerTrend Mirco Corp v. Whitecell Software Patent MTDby Northern District of California BlogTalon Grips v. LMP/Mail Order Videoby PriorSmartBlue Spike v. S Mobilityby PriorSmartSimilar to Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLCSquare v. ProtegrityBurton v. INCA EmpireHospira v. Ivera Medical Et. Al.In ReBryan W. Nickerson, Jr. v. Josef Kutschera, A. G. Birkenruth, the Tidewater Oil Company, 390 F.2d 812, 3rd Cir. (1968)Djh Npe Patent Enforcement v0.4Drew Chemical Company, 522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036 v. Hercules Incorporated, 380 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017, 407 F.2d 360, 2d Cir. (1969)DriveTime Automotive Group v. LodsysWhatsApp v. Intercarrier CommunicationsIn Re Web Vent IonMaxim Integrated Products v. Wells FargoSpanx - Amended Complaint (N.D. Ga.)Shoom v. Source 3 SystemsDis-Tran Wood Products v. Brooks Manufacturing CompanyNexans Inc. v. Belden Inc., Civ. No. 12-1491-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 6, 2013).76Hanesbrands v. Forever 21Matson, Inc. DBA ACF Tarp and Awning v. Cowboy Containments Et. Al.Heathcote Holdings v. L&#039;Oreal10.01175.Order.5.20.10Global Crossing Telecommunications v. Rates TechnologyJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. American Traffic Solutions10-311Adaptix v. Pantech et. al.2010-1117 Order Re ExceptionalTrend Mirco Corp v. Whitecell Software Patent MTDTalon Grips v. LMP/Mail Order VideoBlue Spike v. S MobilityBlue Spike v. Beijing Xiaomi TechnologyConsolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Kunkle, 119 U.S. 45 (1886)Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC