Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/174427959/Intellectual-Ventures-et-al-v-AT-T-Mobility-et-al
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 08:01:43
Document Index: 671955859

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Intellectual Ventures et. al. v. AT & T Mobility et. al. | At&T Mobility | Patent Infringement
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. AT & T Mobility LLC et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. AT & T Mobility LLC et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9fJ for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC AND INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
II LLC, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC; AT&T MOBILITY II LLC; AND NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
COMPLAINT ALLEGING PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“Intellectual Ventures I”) and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Intellectual Ventures II”) allege the following against Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC (d/b/a AT&T Mobility); AT&T Mobility II LLC (d/b/a AT&T Mobility); New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (d/b/a AT&T Mobility) (AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. collectively, “AT&T”):
place of business located in Bellevue, Washington.
Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC, formerly named Cingular Wireless, LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc., with its principal place of business at 5565 Glenridge Connector, Atlanta, Georgia 30342. AT&T Mobility, LLC does business under at least the name AT&T Mobility. 4. Defendant AT&T Mobility II, LLC, formerly named Cingular Wireless II, LLC,
is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc., with its principal place of business at 5565 Glenridge Connector, Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30342. AT&T Mobility II, LLC does business under at least the name AT&T Mobility. 5. Defendant New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., formerly named AT&T
Wireless Services Inc., is a Delaware company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc., with its principal place of business at 7277 164th Avenue NE, Redmond, WA 98052-7823. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. does business under at least the name AT&T Mobility. On information and belief, all three of the companies doing business as AT&T Mobility have overlapping or shared legal departments and/or services. Therefore, notice to one company constitutes notice to all AT&T Mobility companies.
NATURE OF THE ACTION 6. This is a civil action alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,640,248; U.S.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338(a) because this action arises under the U.S. patent laws, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over AT&T because AT&T has committed
infringing acts in this District in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, and has participated in the sale, advertising, marketing, and use of wireless cellular equipment and services, within the State of Delaware and this District, that infringe the Patents-in-Suit. These acts have caused and continue to cause injury to Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II within the District. AT&T 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. 9. AT&T maintains places of business within the District from which it sells
products or services to residents of the District. Additionally, AT&T provides telecommunications services to customers through base stations, switching equipment and other components of their telecommunications networks, which are located in the District. 10. Further, AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC; and New Cingular
Wireless Services, Inc. are each subject to this Court's jurisdiction by virtue of their incorporation or formation in Delaware and their availing themselves of the laws and protections of this District. 11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 12. Paragraphs 1-11 are reincorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
On October 28, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
issued U.S. Patent No. 6,640,248 (“the ’248 Patent”), titled “Application-aware, Quality of Service (QoS) Sensitive, Media Access Control (MAC) Layer.” The ’248 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 14. Intellectual Ventures I owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’248
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 15. On February 11, 1997, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (“the ’831
Patent”), titled “Optimizing Packet Size to Eliminate Effects of Reception Nulls.” The ’831 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 16. Intellectual Ventures I owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’831
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 17. On February 8, 2000, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783 (“the ’783
Patent”), titled “Hybrid Concatenated Codes and Iterative Decoding.” The ’783 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 18. Intellectual Ventures I is the exclusive licensee who possesses all substantial
right, title, and interest in the ’783 Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 19. On October 4, 2005, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 6,952,408 (“the ’408
Patent”), titled “Method of Baseband Frequency Hopping Utilizing Time Division Multiplexed Mapping Between a Radio Transceiver and Digital Signal Processing Resources.” The ’408 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Intellectual Ventures I owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’408
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 21. On April 9, 2002, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 6,370,153 (“the ’153 Patent”),
titled “Method and Apparatus for Reserving Resources of One or More Multiple Access Communication Channels.” The ’153 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 22. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’153
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 23. On October 5, 1999, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 5,963,557 (“the ’557
Patent”), titled “High Capacity Reservation Multiple Access Network with Multiple Shared Unidirectional Paths.” The ’557 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 24. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’557
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 25. On November 13, 2012, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993 (“the ’993
Patent”), titled “Acknowledging Communication in a Wireless Network.” The ’993 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 26. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’993
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 27. On September 11, 2007, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127 (“the ’127
Patent”), titled “Preamble Structures for Single-Input, Single-Output (SISO) and Multi-Input,
Multi-Output (MIMO) Communication Systems.” The ’127 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 28. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’127
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 29. On December 7, 2010, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,848,353 (“the ’353
Patent”), titled “Method, Communication System and Communication Unit for Synchronisation for Multi-rate Communication.” The ’353 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 30. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’353
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 31. On March 12, 2013, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 8,396,079 (“the ’079
Patent”), titled “Communication Units Operating with Various Bandwidths.” The ’079 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 32. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’079
Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. 33. On August 31, 2010, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 (“the ’431
Patent”), titled “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-carrier Communications with Variable Channel Bandwidth.” The ’431 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 34. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’431
titled “Packet Data Queuing and Processing.” The ’994 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit L. 36. Intellectual Ventures II owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’994
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intellectual Ventures 37. Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC (“Intellectual Ventures”) was founded in
2000. Since its founding, Intellectual Ventures has been deeply involved in the business of invention. Intellectual Ventures creates inventions and files patent applications for those inventions; it collaborates with others to develop and patent inventions; and it acquires and licenses patents from individual inventors, universities, and other institutions. A significant aspect of Intellectual Ventures’ business is managing the plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II. 38. Intellectual Ventures’ business includes purchasing important inventions from
individual inventors and institutions, and then licensing the inventions to those who need them. Through this business, Intellectual Ventures enables inventors to reap a financial reward from their innovations, which is often a difficult task for individual inventors. 39. Intellectual Ventures also develops its own inventions. Intellectual Ventures has a
staff of scientists and engineers who develop ideas in a broad range of fields, including agriculture, computer hardware, life sciences, medical devices, semiconductors, and software. Intellectual Ventures has invested millions of dollars developing such ideas and has filed hundreds of patent applications on its inventions every year, making it one of the top patent filers
in the world. Intellectual Ventures also has invested in laboratory facilities to assist with the development and testing of new ideas. 40. Intellectual Ventures develops inventions by collaborating with inventors and
AT&T’s Telecommunications Network 41. AT&T is in the business of providing wireless phone services to customers
throughout the United States, including the State of Delaware. The future of AT&T’s business and the subject of this lawsuit is AT&T’s 4G Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) wireless network. 42. AT&T is in the middle of one of the largest network build outs of all time. Since
2012, AT&T has been aggressively building out its 4G LTE network in a race against other telecommunication providers to gain market share in the United States. AT&T has launched 4G LTE service in over 400 markets in just the last 24 months. AT&T boasts that it has the nation’s fastest and most reliable 4G LTE network and expects the network to cover approximately 300 million people in the United States and to be largely complete by the end of 2014. Three markets in Delaware, Dover, Sussex County and Wilmington, have AT&T 4G LTE service and through the fruits of the inventions described in this complaint, AT&T is enjoying great success and earning tremendous profits.
AT&T has been enormously successful. As of June 30, 2013, AT&T had 107.9
million wireless subscribers, of which 35% had already converted to 4G LTE and over 17 million highly profitable and coveted smartphone users had converted to AT&T’s 4G LTE service. AT&T heavily promotes its 4G LTE network as a selling point and as a differentiator against its competitors. 44. AT&T’s ability to employ 4G LTE service is critical to its business. Due to
substantial increases in the demand for wireless service in the United States, AT&T is facing spectrum and capacity constraints. The build out of AT&T’s 4G LTE network is critical to driving down its cost of providing service, to maintaining and growing its customer base, and to the health of the company. AT&T has no other viable option than deploying 4G LTE. 45. Each passing day, AT&T adds to its LTE customer base by converting 3G
customers to its 4G network and by taking customers from third parties who lack 4G LTE capabilities. Each passing day, AT&T 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 4G LTE technology. 46. AT&T is aware that there are numerous patents in the LTE space, including
patents owned by Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II. Yet, upon information and belief, AT&T has no policy in place to obtain rights from patent holders to use their 4G LTE technology. Upon information and belief, this is by design, and AT&T employs a corporate policy of ignoring the risk of patent infringement and willfully infringing 4G LTE patents. In this fashion, AT&T has been able to keep its costs down and to compete unfairly against companies who lawfully take licenses to the patents in suit.
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 AT&T, 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 AT&T taken a license.
COUNT I (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’248 Patent) 48. 49. Paragraphs 1-47 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 50. AT&T has had knowledge of the ’248 patent since no later than November 8,
2005, when AT&T, or a predecessor, brought it to the attention of the examiner in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,762. AT&T Corp. is the current assignee of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,762. In other words, AT&T’s infringement has been willful and the Court should award treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 51. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement of
COUNT II (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’831 Patent) 52. 53. Paragraphs 1-51 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 54. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement of
COUNT III (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’783 Patent) 55. 56. Paragraphs 1-54 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 57. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement of
COUNT IV (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’408 Patent) 58. 59. Paragraphs 1-57 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s cellular services, including, but not limited to, cellular services that implement LTE in wireless base stations. 60. Intellectual Ventures I has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement of
COUNT V (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’153 Patent) 61. 62. Paragraphs 1-60 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 63. AT&T has had knowledge of the ’153 patent since no later than May 19, 2004,
when AT&T, or a predecessor, brought it to the attention of the examiner in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,850,981. AT&T Corp. is the current assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,850,981. In other words, AT&T’s infringement has been willful and the Court should award treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 64. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’153 Patent.
COUNT VI (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’557 Patent) 65. Paragraphs 1-64 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 67. AT&T has had knowledge of the ’557 patent since no later than September 19,
2001, when AT&T, or a predecessor, brought it to the attention of the examiner in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,963,545. AT&T Corp. is the current assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,963,545. In other words, AT&T’s infringement has been willful and the Court should award treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 68. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’557 Patent.
COUNT VII (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’993 Patent) 69. 70. Paragraphs 1-68 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 71. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’993 Patent.
COUNT VIII (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’127 Patent) 72. Paragraphs 1-71 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 74. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’127 Patent.
COUNT IX (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’353 Patent) 75. 76. Paragraphs 1-74 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 77. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’353 Patent.
COUNT X (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’079 Patent) 78. 79. Paragraphs 1-77 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 80. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’079 Patent.
COUNT XI (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’431 Patent) 81. 82. Paragraphs 1-80 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 83. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’431 Patent. COUNT XII (AT&T’s Infringement of the ’994 Patent) 84. 85. Paragraphs 1-83 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. AT&T 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 AT&T’s 4G LTE network services. 86. Intellectual Ventures II has suffered damage as a result of AT&T’s infringement
of the ’994 Patent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II respectfully request the following relief:
A judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,640,248; 5,602,831; 6,023,783;
6,952,408; 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) A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’248 Patent; A judgment that AT&T’s infringement of the ’248 Patent was willful and
that the damages shall be increased under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to three times the amount found or measured; d) e) f) g) h) A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’831 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’783 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’408 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’153 Patent; A judgment that AT&T’s infringement of the ’153 Patent was willful and
that the damages shall be increased under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to three times the amount found or measured; i) j) A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’557 Patent; A judgment that AT&T’s infringement of the ’557 Patent was willful and
that the damages shall be increased under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to three times the amount found or measured; k) l) m) n) o) A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’993 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’127 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’353 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’079 Patent; A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’431 Patent;
A judgment that AT&T has infringed the ’994 Patent; An order enjoining AT&T and its officers, agents, servants and
employees, privies, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from further infringement of said patents; r) A judgment that Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II be
awarded all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for AT&T’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 AT&T’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.
Documents Similar To Intellectual Ventures et. al. v. AT & T Mobility et. al.