Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/185534848/Innovative-Wireless-Solutions-v-Compex-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 01:28:33
Document Index: 677428743

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 299', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', 'art40']

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Compex et. al.
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28H. H. (Shashi) Kewalramani (Bar No. 262290) shashi@ljpklaw.com LEE, JORGENSEN, PYLE & KEWALRAMANI, PC 440 W 1st Street, Suite 205 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 252-6611 Facsimile: (714) 602-4690 Attorneys for Plaintiff INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. COMPEX, INC. AND COMPEX SYSTEMS PTE LTD., Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC (“IWS” or “Plaintiff”), by way of its Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) against Defendants Compex, Inc. and Compex Systems Pte Ltd. (collectively “Compex” or “Defendants”), alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent Civil Case No. SA CV 13-1816 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over such Federal Question claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
2. 1400(b). 3.
On information and belief, Defendant Compex, Inc. is subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of the fact that it is organized under the laws of the State of California. On information and belief, Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of their acts of patent infringement which have been committed in this Judicial District, and by virtue of their regularly conducted and systematic business contacts in this State. As such, Defendants have
purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this Judicial District, have established sufficient minimum contacts with this Judicial District such that they should reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in this Judicial District, have purposefully directed activities at residents of this State, and at least a portion of the patent infringement claims alleged herein arise out of or are related to one or more of the foregoing activities. THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC (“IWS”) is a Texas
limited liability company with a place of business at 555 Republic Drive, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75074. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Compex, Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of California. On information and belief Defendant has a place of business at 4051 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, California 92807. 6. On information and belief, Defendant Compex Systems Pte Ltd. is a
corporation organized under the laws of Singapore. On information and belief Defendant has a place of business at 135 Joo Seng Road #08-01, Singapore 368363, Republic of Singapore. On information and belief Compex Systems Pte Ltd. and Compex, Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Powermatic Data Systems Limited.
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 7. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 6 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On June 15, 1999, U.S. Patent Number 5,912,895 (the “’895 Patent”),
entitled “INFORMATION NETWORK ACCESS APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING INFORMATION PACKETS VIA TELEPHONE LINES,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’895 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 9. On December 4, 2001, U.S. Patent Number 6,327,264 (the “’264
Patent”), entitled “INFORMATION NETWORK ACCESS APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING INFORMATION PACKETS VIA TELEPHONE LINES,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’264 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 10. On July 1, 2003, U.S. Patent Number 6,587,473 (the “’473 Patent”),
entitled “INFORMATION NETWORK ACCESS APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING INFORMATION PACKETS VIA TELEPHONE LINES,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’473 Patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint. 11. IWS is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to
the ’895, ’264 and ’473 Patents (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”), including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right to any remedies for infringement. JOINDER 12. Joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The allegations of
infringement contained herein are asserted against the Defendants jointly, severally,
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
or in the alternative and arise, at least in part, out of the same series of transactions and occurrences relating to Defendants’ manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importation of the same accused products. On information and belief, the
Defendants are part of the same corporate family of companies, and the infringement allegations arise at least in part from the Defendants’ collective activities with respect to the Defendants’ accused products. Questions of fact common to the Defendants will arise in the action, including questions relating to the structure and operation of the accused products, Defendants’ infringing acts and, on information and belief, the validity of the patents-in-suit. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,912,895) 13. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 12 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 14. IWS provided actual notice to Defendants of their infringement of the
’895 Patent in a letter dated October 18, 2013 from IWS to Defendants. In this letter, IWS informed Defendants that they were infringing the ’895 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing wireless access points and/or routers capable of connecting to an Ethernet network and an IEEE 802.11 wireless network (the “’895 Patent Accused Products”) to provide wireless Internet access. 15. IWS’s letter further informed Defendants that their wireless network
the wireless path and include an Ethernet interface to an Ethernet network.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
Ethernet is a CSMA/CD technology. The ’895 Patent Accused Products include a buffer for buffering information packets received from the Ethernet network via the Ethernet interface for supply to the wireless path. The ’895 Patent Accused Products also include a buffer for buffering information packets received from the wireless path for supply to the Ethernet network via the Ethernet interface. The ’895 Patent Accused Products also include a controller that implements the control protocol as defined in IEEE 802.11. c. A station is connected at a second end of the wireless path. The
controller in the station are arranged to exchange control information over the wireless path so as to allow information packets to be communicated bidirectionally over the wireless path between the buffers of the ’895 Patent Accused Products and the station in a half-duplex manner. 16. IWS’s letter further informed Defendants that they were inducing
infringement of the ’895 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’895 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’895 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’895 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. This letter further explained that such other entities include, for example, Defendants’ partners, customers and end users of the ’895 Patent Accused Products. This letter further explained that Defendants’ acts of inducement include but are not limited to advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’895 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product
documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’895 Patent Accused Products. 17. IWS’s letter also informed Defendants that they were contributing to
infringement of the ’895 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by providing the ’895 Patent Accused Products to others, including their partners, customers, and end users, because the ’895 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’895 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. IWS further identified within this letter that, for example, the ’895 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain the components that interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’895 Patent. Further, IWS explained that the ’895 Patent Accused Products were made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’895 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’895 Patent. 18. Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’895 Patent and their
infringement of that patent since at least the date that Defendants received the October 18, 2013 notice letter from IWS. 19. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendants have directly infringed
and continue to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’895 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling in the United States, and importing into the United States, products that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’895 Patent, including but not limited to claim 48, without the authority of IWS. The ’895 Patent Accused Products include, but are not limited to, Defendants’ wireless base stations, wireless access points and wireless routers including, but not limited to, Defendants’ IEEE
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
802.11 compliant wireless access points and wireless routers such as their WPE72NX Wireless 11 N Indoor Access Point. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendants have induced and continue to
induce others to infringe the ’895 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’895 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’895 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’895 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. Such other entities include, for example, Defendants’ partners, customers and end users of the ’895 Patent Accused Products. Defendants’ acts of inducement include their advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’895 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’895 Patent Accused Products. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’895 Patent and that their acts were inducing others to infringe the ’895 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from IWS notifying Defendants of their infringement of the ’895 Patent. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendants have committed and continue
to commit acts of contributory infringement of the ’895 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling, and importing the ’895 Patent Accused Products. The ’895 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’895 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. The ’895 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain the components that interface a wireless network to an
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’895 Patent. Further, the ’895 Patent Accused Products were made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’895 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’895 Patent. Defendants have known or remained willfully blind to these facts since at least the date they received the notice letter from IWS detailing Defendants’ infringement of the ’895 Patent. 22. 23. IWS has been harmed by the Defendants’ infringing activities. IWS notified Defendants of their infringement of the ’895 Patent
including an identification of the particular infringing products and features, but Defendants thereafter continued to infringe the ’895 Patent by continuing the activities described in Paragraph 14-17. On information and belief, Defendants have not obtained an opinion of counsel regarding the’895 Patent. The Defendants’ continued infringement has therefore been in reckless disregard of IWS’s patent rights. On information and belief, the Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful. COUNT II (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,327,264) 24. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 23 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 25. IWS provided actual notice to Defendants of their infringement of the
’264 Patent in a letter dated October 18, 2013 from IWS to Defendants. In this letter, IWS informed Defendants that they were infringing the ’264 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing wireless access points and/or routers capable of connecting to an Ethernet network and an IEEE 802.11
wireless network (the “’264 Patent Accused Products”) to provide wireless Internet access. 26. IWS’s letter further informed Defendants that their wireless network
holds frames received from the Ethernet network via the Ethernet interface and then supplies those frames via the wireless interface to the wireless network. f. The ’264 Patent Accused Products include a second buffer that
holds frames received from the wireless network via the wireless interface and then supplies those frames via the Ethernet interface to the Ethernet network. 27. IWS’s letter further informed Defendants that they were inducing
infringement of the ’264 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively aiding and
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’264 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’264 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’264 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. This letter further explained that such other entities include, for example, Defendants’ partners, customers and end users of the ’264 Patent Accused Products. This letter further explained that Defendants’ acts of inducement include but are not limited to advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’264 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’264 Patent Accused Products. 28. Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’264 Patent and their
infringement of that patent since at least the date that Defendants received the October 18, 2013 notice letter from IWS. 29. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendants have directly infringed
and continue to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’264 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling in the United States, and importing into the United States, products that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’264 Patent, including but not limited to claim 5, without the authority of IWS. The ’264 Patent Accused
Products include, but are not limited to, Defendants’ wireless base stations, wireless access points and wireless routers including, but not limited to, Defendants’ IEEE 802.11 compliant wireless access points and wireless routers such as their WPE72NX Wireless 11 N Indoor Access Point. 30. Upon information and belief, Defendants have induced and continue to
induce others to infringe the ’264 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
of the method claims in connection with use of the ’264 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’264 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’264 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. Such other entities include, for example, Defendants’ partners, customers and end users of the ’264 Patent Accused Products. Defendants’ acts of inducement include advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’264 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’264 Patent Accused Products. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’264 Patent and that their acts were inducing others to infringe the ’264 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from IWS notifying Defendants of their infringement of the ’264 Patent. 31. 32. IWS has been harmed by the Defendants’ infringing activities. IWS notified Defendants of their infringement of the ’264 Patent
including an identification of the particular infringing products and features, but Defendants thereafter continued to infringe the ’264 Patent by continuing the activities described in Paragraph 25-27. On information and belief, Defendants have not obtained an opinion of counsel regarding the ’264 Patent. The
Defendants’ continued infringement has therefore been in reckless disregard of IWS’s patent rights. On information and belief, the Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful. COUNT III (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,587,473) 33. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 32 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
IWS provided actual notice to Defendants of their infringement of the
’473 Patent in a letter dated October 18, 2013 from IWS to Defendants. In this letter, IWS informed Defendants that they were infringing the ’473 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing wireless access points and/or routers capable of connecting to an Ethernet network and an IEEE 802.11 wireless network (the “’473 Patent Accused Products”) to provide wireless Internet access. 35. IWS’s letter further informed Defendants that their wireless network
implements the control protocol as defined in IEEE 802.11. In accordance with that protocol, the controller provides information that controls when stations connected to the network are allowed to transmit, thereby causing the communications over the wireless network to occur in a half-duplex manner. e. The ’473 Patent Accused Products receive information
corresponding to information packets from the wireless path at the Ethernet modem and transmit those information packets over the Ethernet network. 36. IWS’s letter further informed Defendants that they were inducing
infringement of the ’473 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively aiding and
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’473 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’473 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’473 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. This letter further explained that such other entities include, for example, Defendants’ partners, customers and end users of the ’473 Patent Accused Products. This letter further explained that Defendants’ acts of inducement include but are not limited to advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’473 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’473 Patent Accused Products. 37. IWS’s letter also informed Defendants that they were contributing to
infringement of the ’473 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by providing the ’473 Patent Accused Products to others, including their partners, customers, and end users, because the ’473 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’473 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. IWS further identified within this letter that, for example, the ’473 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain the components that interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’473 Patent. Further, IWS explained the ’473 Patent Accused Products were made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’473 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’473 Patent.
Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’473 Patent and their
infringement of that patent since at least the date that Defendants received the October 18, 2013 notice letter from IWS. 39. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendants have directly infringed
and continue to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’473 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling in the United States, and importing into the United States, products that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’473 Patent, including but not limited to claim 40, without the authority of IWS. The ’473 Patent Accused Products include, but are not limited to, Defendants’ wireless base stations, wireless access points and wireless routers including, but not limited to, Defendants’ IEEE 802.11 compliant wireless access points and wireless routers such as their WPE72NX Wireless 11 N Indoor Access Point. 40. Upon information and belief, Defendants have induced and continue to
induce others to infringe the ’473 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’473 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’473 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’473 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. Such other entities include, for example, Defendants’ partners,
customers and end users of the ’473 Patent Accused Products. Defendants’ acts of inducement include advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’473 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’473 Patent Accused Products. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’473
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
Patent and that their acts were inducing others to infringe the ’473 Patent since at least the date they received the notice letter from IWS notifying Defendants of their infringement of the ’473 Patent. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendants have committed and continue
to commit acts of contributory infringement of the ’473 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell and selling the ’473 Patent Accused Products. The ’473 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’473 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. The ’473 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain the components that interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’473 Patent. Further, the ’473 Patent Accused Products were made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’473 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’473 Patent. Defendants have known or remained
willfully blind to these facts since at least the date they received the notice letter from IWS detailing Defendants’ infringement of the ’473 Patent. 42. 43. IWS has been harmed by the Defendants’ infringing activities. IWS notified Defendants of their infringement of the ’473 Patent
including an identification of the particular infringing products and features, but Defendants thereafter continued to infringe the ’473 Patent by continuing the activities described in Paragraph 34-37. On information and belief, Defendants have not obtained an opinion of counsel regarding the ’473 Patent. The
Defendants’ continued infringement has therefore been in reckless disregard of IWS’s patent rights. On information and belief, the Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15 CASE NO. SA CV 13-1816
JURY DEMAND IWS demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, IWS prays for judgment as follows: a. An adjudication that Defendants have infringed one or more claims of
each of the patents-in-suit; b. An award of damages to be paid by Defendants adequate to
compensate IWS for past infringement of the patents-in-suit, and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial; c. An order that Defendants must pay an ongoing royalty in an amount to
Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Compex et. al. by PriorSmart40 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC v. Compex, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC v. Compex, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9w3 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
RelatedInnovative Wireless Solutions v. ZyXEL Communicationsby PatentBlastInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Z-Comby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Zoom Telephonicsby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Ubiquiti Networksby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. IC Intracomby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. HAC Partners et. al.by PriorSmartEON Corp. IP Holdings v. LG Electronics MobileCommby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions et. al. v. Paneraby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Capriotti's Sandwich Shopby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwideby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Inter-Continental Hotels Groupby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Vajia Investmentby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Dijashviby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Dunkin' Brands Groupby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Alh Properties No. Oneby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Texarkana Hospitalityby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Sweet Faithby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. North 281 Managementby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. 281 Lodging Partnershipby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Starbucksby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Blackstone Groupby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Sun Suites Interests Lllpby PriorSmartSimilar to Dexas International v. Office DepotInnovative Wireless Solutions v. ZyXEL CommunicationsInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Z-ComInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Zoom TelephonicsInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Ubiquiti NetworksInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions v. IC IntracomInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions v. HAC Partners et. al.EON Corp. IP Holdings v. LG Electronics MobileCommInnovative Wireless Solutions et. al. v. PaneraInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Capriotti's Sandwich ShopInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts WorldwideInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Inter-Continental Hotels GroupInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Vajia InvestmentInnovative Wireless Solutions v. DijashviInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Dunkin' Brands GroupInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Alh Properties No. OneInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Texarkana HospitalityInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Sweet FaithInnovative Wireless Solutions v. North 281 ManagementInnovative Wireless Solutions v. 281 Lodging PartnershipInnovative Wireless Solutions v. StarbucksInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Blackstone GroupInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Sun Suites Interests LllpInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Marriott InternationalInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Magnolia LodgingDexas International v. Office Depot