Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/182674568/Mobile-Telecommunications-Technologies-v-ZTE
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 04:26:44
Document Index: 159234116

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1331', '§17', '§1391', '§282', '§271', '§271', '§284', '§271', '§284', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§284', '§284', '§285', '§285', 'art37', 'art11']

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. ZTE
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. ZTE (USA) INC., Defendant. Plaintiff, § § § § § § § § §
“Plaintiff”) by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby pleads the following claims for patent infringement against Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff MTel is a Delaware limited liability company having a
Lewisville, Texas. 3. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant
ZTE (USA), Inc. (“Defendant” or “ZTE”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its headquarters at 33 Wood Avenue South, 7th Floor, Iselin, NJ 08830 and a principal place of business at 2425 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Richardson, Texas 75080. 4. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE (USA),
Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ZTE Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China (“P.R. China”) with its principal place of business in ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, P.R. China 518057.
MTel asserts against ZTE in this action U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,428
(the “’428 Patent”) and 5,754,946 (the “’946 Patent”) (together, the “Patents-in-Suit” or the “asserted patents”). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. §1 et. seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over ZTE under the laws of the
State of Texas, including the Texas long-arm statute, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §17.042. ZTE has been, and currently is, continuously and systematically ZTE has
systematically, continuously, and purposefully harmed MTel in this jurisdiction by making, using, importing, offering for sale, or selling infringing communication networks, network operations centers, mobile units, related hardware, or related software that infringe one or more claims of the ’428 Patent and/or the ’946 Patent. ZTE has systematically, continuously, and purposefully harmed MTel in this jurisdiction by knowingly contributing to or inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ’428 Patent and/or the ’946 Patent. 8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(a) & (c), and 1400(b). FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,809,428) 9. forth herein.
Plaintiff reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 8 as though fully set
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and
lawfully issued the ’428 Patent, entitled “Method and Device for Processing Undelivered Data Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communications System” on September 15, 1998. MTel is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’428 Patent and possesses the exclusive right of recovery, including the exclusive right to recover for past, present, and future infringement. Each and every claim of the ’428 Patent is valid and enforceable and each enjoys a statutory presumption of validity separate, apart, and in addition to the statutory presumption of validity enjoyed by every other of its claims. 35 U.S.C. §282. A true and correct copy of the ’428 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. The ’428 Patent describes and claims, inter alia, methods, systems,
and devices for storing undeliverable messages, such as e-mail, text and instant messages. 12. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE, without
authorization or license, has been and is now directly or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’428 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271, including as stated below. 13. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE’s
customers and all end-users of ZTE devices, equipment, products, or services are direct infringers of the ’428 Patent. 14. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE has
directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, and will
continue to directly infringe each patent claim of the ’428 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States network operation centers (e.g., XMPP (or similar protocol)-compliant servers and/or other networking components) and mobile units (i.e., ZTE Android phones, tablets, and other wireless devices such as Score M, Grand S, Grand Memo, Grand S Flex, Grand Era, Grand X Pro, Grand X LTE, Grand X In, Grand X, Flash, Blade V, Blade G, Kis III, Kis II, KIS Flex, Skate, V9800, Blade L, Blade C2, Blade C, Blade III, Blade, Anthem, Concord, Merit, Warp Sequent, V857, V96A, V81, V70, N800, Warp 4G, Warp 4G, Source, Supreme, Avail 2, Reef, Z998, Imperial, Vital, Grand X2 In, Engage LT, Grand Era, Director, Geek, Force, Nubia Z5, Avid 4G, Groove, Engage, Concord, Anthem 4G, Blade II, Fury, Mimosa Mini, PF 100, V96, V9S, T98, ZTE Light Tab 300, Kis, Skate Acqua, N91, PF200, PF112, Era, FTV Phone, Optik, Crescent, V9, Roamer, Light Tab 2, Light Tab, Warp, Avail, Libra, V871, Score, San Francisco, Racer, N720, V880) that provide XMPP-(or similar protocol) compliant messaging services and applications (e.g., ChatON, Google Cloud Messaging (“GCM”), Google Talk/Hangouts, Agile Messenger, AIO Instant Messenger, Asia IM, Beejive, Beem, Bluejabb IM XMPP, BombusMod, BombusQD, Bria Android, Bruno the Jabber Bear, Business Communicator, Callpoint, ChatCat Multilingual, IM App, CIM, Crolix Communicator, Dodo, Facebook Chat, Gibberbot, Google Talk Chat and XMPP, GTalkShare, GTalkSMS, GTalkSMS Donate, Handsfree SMS , Hotweb (Beta), ICall: Free Calls + Text , iChat XMPP,IM GreenBug Beta, IM+, imov
Messenger, Intelli IM, Jabiru , jTalk, Juick Advanced, Max Call, Maxis BizVoice,
Mimi Location (Family Safety), MoliCity Talk Talk, Mundu IM Lite, My Message, myChatDroid, NFC XMPP Intent, OctroTalk, Paint Chat, Profile, PSChat Lite, SecureChat, Servers Ultimate & Servers, Ultimate Pro, Simple XMPP Client, SMSWiFi (Beta), Spicy XMPP Chat Client, Talkonaut, TextOne, Tigase Messenger, Trillian, Twinsee – free video calls, Unique Dial SIP Softphone, Vegas Mobile, Voice Chat for Car Free, VoIP Video SIP softphone, Wauwl, WCS Mobile AIR, Xabber, Xabber VIP, XMessager, XMPP notify, XMPP notify full, XMPP Server & XMPP Server Pro, and Yaxim) (collectively, “Messaging Services”) that embody or practice the method of each claim of the ’428 Patent. These applications are preinstalled on the mobile devices before delivery to the end-user or are provided by or through ZTE’s App Store or the Google Play App Store. 15. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the use by end
users of Messaging Services on the accused mobile units also practices the methods of the ’428 Patent. Such use by the end users is direct patent infringement of the ’428 Patent. ZTE has and will continue to contribute to and induce the
infringement of end users by intentionally instructing and otherwise encouraging infringement and by providing infringing mobile units and compatible Messaging Services preinstalled and for installation after activation of ZTE-branded mobile devices. The Messaging Services and mobile devices have features relevant to the end users’ direct infringement that have no substantially non-infringing uses other than to operate and perform as claimed by one or more claims of the ’428 Patent. The ZTE-branded mobile devices are specially enabled for utilizing the Messaging
Services. ZTE encourages end users to use the Messaging Services and intends the end users to use its ZTE-branded mobile units enabled with at least one Messaging Service as contemplated by the claims of the ’428 Patent. ZTE intentionally
contributes to and induces direct infringement of the ’428 Patent with knowledge that its actions constitute infringement of the ’428 Patent since at least the filing or service of this action. 16. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE also
intentionally encourages and instructs Mobile Network Operators (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, Verizon) and/or retailers to make, use, import, sell, and/or offer to sell ZTE Android mobile devices that ZTE knows infringe each claim of the ’428 Patent. ZTE provides detailed instructions and support regarding how to operate mobile devices and network operation centers in manners that infringe the ’428 Patent. ZTE also induces infringement by, for example, entering marketing and sales agreements and by providing components used in infringement, technical support,
advertisements, marketing materials, instruction booklets, user guides, email services, messaging services, and/or service manuals. 17. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE induced
and continues to induce the infringement of at least one claim of the ’428 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b), by, among other things, actively, knowingly, and/or recklessly aiding and abetting others (including ZTE’s customers and end users) through activities such as
marketing with the specific intent to induce others to directly use without license or authority, products that fall within the scope of at least one claim of the ’428 Patent. Willful Infringement of the ’428 Patent 18. Any further infringing activity demonstrates a deliberate and
conscious decision to infringe the ’428 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of MTel’s patent rights. ZTE continuing to make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import infringing products constitutes willful infringement for which MTel is entitled to up to treble damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§284, 285. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,754,946) 19. forth herein. 20. The USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ’946 Patent entitled Plaintiff reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as though fully set
that provide for the transmission of unreceived portions of a message.
MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE without
authorization or license, has been and is now directly or indirectly infringing one or more patents claims of the ’946 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271, including as stated below. 23. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE’s
customers and all end-users of ZTE devices, equipment, products, or services are direct infringers of the ’946 Patent. 24. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE directly
infringes, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, and will continue to directly infringe each claim of the ’946 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States mobile devices (i.e., ZTE Android phones, tablets, and other wireless devices such as Score M, Grand S, Grand Memo, Grand S Flex, Grand Era, Grand X Pro, Grand X LTE, Grand X In, Grand X, Flash, Blade V, Blade G, Kis III, Kis II, KIS Flex, Skate, V9800, Blade L, Blade C2, Blade C, Blade III, Blade, Anthem, Concord, Merit, Warp Sequent, V857, V96A, V81, V70, N800, Warp 4G, Warp 4G, Source, Supreme, Avail 2, Reef, Z998, Imperial, Vital, Grand X2 In, Engage LT, Grand Era, Director, Geek, Force, Nubia Z5, Avid 4G, Groove, Engage, Concord, Anthem 4G, Blade II, Fury, Mimosa Mini, PF 100, V96, V9S, T98, ZTE Light Tab 300, Kis, Skate Acqua, N91, PF200, PF112, Era, FTV Phone, Optik, Crescent, V9, Roamer, Light Tab 2, Light Tab, Warp, Avail, Libra, V871, Score, San Francisco, Racer, N720, V880) that include or are compatible with messaging services and other applications that allow for message retransmission
(e.g., Gmail, Calendar) and embody claims and/or practice the methods of the ’946 Patent. 25. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the use by end
users of messaging services and other applications that allow for message retransmission on the accused mobile devices and networks also directly infringes each of the claims of the ’946 Patent. ZTE has and will continue to contribute to and induce the infringement of end users by intentionally instructing and otherwise encouraging infringement by end users by providing manuals and similar instructions on the operation of its mobile units and compatible messaging services and other applications that allow for message retransmission. For example, ZTE instructs end users on ways and methods of retrieving portions of email and other messages. The messaging features utilized by the mobile units to infringe the ’946 Patent have no substantial non-infringing uses other than to operate as claimed by one or more claims of the ’946 Patent. ZTE intentionally contributes to and induces direct infringement of the ’946 Patent with knowledge that its actions constitute infringement of the ’946 Patent since at least the filing or service of this action. 26. MTel is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that ZTE also
intentionally encourages and instructs Mobile Network Operators (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, Verizon) and/or retailers to make, use, import, sell, and/or offer to sell ZTE Android mobile devices and communication networks that ZTE knows infringe each claim of the ’946 Patent. ZTE provides detailed instructions and support regarding how to operate mobile devices, communication networks, and network operation
centers in manners that infringe the ’946 Patent. ZTE also induces infringement by, for example, entering marketing and sales agreements and by providing components used in infringement, technical support, advertisements, marketing materials, instruction booklets, user guides, email services, messaging services, and/or service manuals. Willful Infringement of the ’946 Patent 27. Any further infringing activity demonstrates a deliberate and
conscious decision to infringe the ’946 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of MTel’s patent rights. ZTE continuing to make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import infringing products constitutes willful infringement for which MTel is entitled to up to treble damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§284, 285. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MTel prays for entry of judgment against ZTE as follows: A. That ZTE has directly infringed each of the asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. §271(a); B. That ZTE has induced the infringement by others of each of the asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. §271(b); C. That ZTE has contributed to the infringement by others of each of the asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. §271(c);
D. That ZTE provide to MTel an accounting of all gains, profits, savings, and advantages derived by ZTE’s direct or indirect infringement of the asserted Patents, and that MTel be awarded damages adequate to compensate for the wrongful infringement by ZTE, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284; E. That the damages awarded to MTel with respect to each of the asserted Patents be increased up to three times, in view of ZTE’s willful infringement, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284; F. That this case be declared an exceptional one in favor of MTel under 35 U.S.C. §285, and that MTel be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this civil action in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §285 and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; G. That ZTE, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, be preliminarily and permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing any of the asserted Patents; and H. That MTel receive all other or further relief as this Court may deem just or proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), MTel hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Daniel R. Scardino Daniel R. Scardino Texas State Bar No. 24033165 Craig S. Jepson Texas State Bar No. 24061364 REED & SCARDINO LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1250 Austin, TX 78701 Tel. (512) 474-2449 Fax (512) 474-2622 dscardino@reedscardino.com cjepson@reedscardino.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. ZTE by PriorSmart37 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00946: Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00946: Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9tp 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
RelatedMobile Telecommunications Technologies v. LG Electronics Mobilecommby PriorSmartSPH America v. T-Mobileby PriorSmartCellular Communications Equipment v. HTC Et. Al.by PatentBlastCellular Communications Equipment v. ZTE Et. Al.by PatentBlastStraight Path IP Group v. LG Electronics Et. Al.by PatentBlastAlcatel-Lucent v. Sophos et. al.by PriorSmartEnterprise Systems Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartTQ Delta v. Zhone Technologies.pdfby PatentBlastComcast IP Holdings v. Sprint Communications Company et. al.by PriorSmartWordlogic et. al. v. Touchtypeby PriorSmartMiiCs & Partners America et. al. v. Toshiba et. al.by PriorSmartAmeranth v. Domino's Pizza et. al.by PriorSmartPotter Voice v. Apple Et Alby jeff_roberts881 v. Apple et. al.by PriorSmartInnovative Display Technologies et. al. v. Sprint et. al.by PriorSmartRound Rock Research v. Lenovo Holding Company et. al.by PriorSmartMosaid Technologies v. Xilinxby PriorSmartTQ Delta v. Pace Americas.pdfby PatentBlastHelferich Patent Licensing v. NBA Properties et. al.by PriorSmartKoninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et. al. v. Zoll Lifecorby PriorSmartBose v Beats Electronics Et Alby jeff_roberts881Bose v. Beatsby appleinsiderBose vs Beatsby CNET NewsPRG Magalog for Summer and Fall 2013 Advanced Courses Programsby PRGPatentLawIngeniador v. BMC Softwareby PriorSmartIrori Technologies v. Luminexby PriorSmart11-12224-RGSby barzilay123Summit 6 LLC v. LG Electronics MobileComm USA Incby PatentBlastSimilar to Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. ZTE.pdfMobile Telecommunications Technologies v. LG Electronics MobilecommSPH America v. T-MobileCellular Communications Equipment v. HTC Et. Al.Cellular Communications Equipment v. ZTE Et. Al.Straight Path IP Group v. LG Electronics Et. Al.Alcatel-Lucent v. Sophos et. al.Enterprise Systems Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.TQ Delta v. Zhone Technologies.pdfComcast IP Holdings v. Sprint Communications Company et. al.Wordlogic et. al. v. TouchtypeMiiCs & Partners America et. al. v. Toshiba et. al.Ameranth v. Domino's Pizza et. al.Potter Voice v. Apple Et Al v. Apple et. al.Innovative Display Technologies et. al. v. Sprint et. al.Round Rock Research v. Lenovo Holding Company et. al.Mosaid Technologies v. XilinxTQ Delta v. Pace Americas.pdfHelferich Patent Licensing v. NBA Properties et. al.Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et. al. v. Zoll LifecorBose v Beats Electronics Et AlBose v. BeatsBose vs BeatsPRG Magalog for Summer and Fall 2013 Advanced Courses ProgramsIngeniador v. BMC SoftwareIrori Technologies v. Luminex11-12224-RGSSummit 6 LLC v. LG Electronics MobileComm USA IncWahl Clipper v. Philips Electronics North AmericaNxp v. Broadcom.pdfMobile Telecommunications Technologies v. ZTE.pdf