IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION CHILD PROTECT, LLC, Plaintiff~ v. SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP, Case No. 6:09-cv-498 NEXTEL OF TEXAS, INC.,
PATENT CASE NEXTEL OPERATIONS, INC.,
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS,
ALLTEL CORPORATION, n/k/a/ CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS,
VIRGIN MOBILE USA,LP~and
LP,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff ChildProtect~LLC ("Plaintiff') files this First Amended Complaint against Sprint Spectrum, LP ("SprintSpectrum")~Nextel ofTexas~Inc. ("Nextel ofTexas")~Nextel Operations~Inc. ("Nextel Operations'~)(collectively referred to as "Sprint Defendants"), AT&T Mobility, LLC ("AT&T), Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), Alltel
Corporation n/k/a CellcoPartnership~d/b/a Verizon Wireless("Alltel")~ Virgin MobileUSA~ LP~ ("Virgin Mobile") and Helio n/k/a Virgin MobileUSA~ LP ("Helio") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") for infringement of United States Patent No. 7~046,782 (hereinafter "the '782
patent"), United States Patent No. 7,515,700 (hereinafter "the '700 patent") and 7,587,198 (hereinafter "the' 198 patent").
JURISDICTION
1. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief as well as damages.
2. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§
1331 (Federal Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement .arising under the United States patent statutes.3. Plaintiff Child Protect, LLC is a Texas Limited Liability Company located in Frisco, Texas.
4. Defendant Sprint Spectrum is a Delaware Limited Partnership with its principal office located in Reston, Virginia. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sprint Spectrum because Sprint Spectrum has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or bas engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
5. Defendant Nextel of Texas is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located in Austin, Texas. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Nextel of Texas because Nextel of Texas has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
6. Defendant Nextel Operations is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located in Reston, Virginia. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Nextel Operations because Nextel Operations has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of
Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
7. Defendant AT&T is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office located in Atlanta, Georgia. This Court has personal jurisdiction over AT&T because AT&T is has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has
conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
8. Defendant Verizon is a Delaware partnership with its principal office located in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon because Verizon has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has
conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
9.
Defendant Alltel was a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Little Rock; Arkansas. On or about January 9, 2009,Alltel
wasacquiredbyVerizon. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Alltel because Alltel has committed acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.10. Defendant Virgin Mobile is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office in Warren, New Jersey. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Virgin Mobile because Virgin Mobile has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
11. Defendant Helio was a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office in Los Angeles, California. On or about August 22, 2008, Helio was acquired by Virgin Mobile. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Helio because Helio has committed acts of
infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas.
12. On information and belief, Defendants' actions that are alleged herein to infringe were and continue to be practiced in the Eastern District of Texas and Defendants' products that are alleged herein to infringe were and continue to be made, used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold in the Eastern District of Texas.
VENUE
13. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Defendants are deemed to reside in this district. In addition, and in the alternative, Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this district and have regular and established places of business in this district.
COUNT I
(INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,046,782) 14. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein by reference.
15. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in particular, 35 U.S.C.
§§
271 et seq.16. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the '782 patent with sole right to enforce the '782 patent and sue infringers.
17. A copy of the '782 patent, titled "Telephone Call Control System and Methods," is . attached hereto as Exhibit A.
18. The '782 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.
19. On information and belief, the Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '782 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling andlor practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '782 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Sprint Family Locator." The Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the '782 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
20. On information and belief, Defendant AT&T has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '782 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling
andlor
practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '782 patent, including, but not limited to, the "AT&T Family Map." AT&T has infringed and continues to infringe the '782 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.21. On information and belief, Defendant Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim I, of the '782 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling andlor practicing the methods covered by one or more claims ofthe '782 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Verizan Chaperone." Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe the '782 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C.
§
271.22. On information and belief, Defendant Alltel has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '782 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling andlor practicing the methods covered by one or more claims ofthe 782 patent,
including, but not limitedtOt the "Alltel Family Finder." Alltel has infringed and continues to infringe the '782 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or
inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C.
§
271.23. On information and belief, Defendant Virgin Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim
1,
ofthe '782 patent, by making, using, offering for salet selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the'782 patent, includingt but not limited to, the "Buddy Beacon," Virgin Mobile has infringed and
continues to infringe the '782 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C.
§
271.24. On information and belief, Defendant Helio has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim I,ofthe '782 patent, by making using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims ofthe '782 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Buddy Beacon." Helio has infringed and continues to infringe the '782 patent either directly or through acts ofcontribntory
infringement
or inducementin
violation of35 U.S.C.
§
271.25. Defendants' actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendants are enjoined by this court.
26. On information and belief, Defendants' infringement of the '782 patent has been and continues to be willful.
27. This case is exceptional pursuant to the provisions of35 U.S.C.
§
285. 28. Plaintiff has complied with 35 U.S.C. §287.29. Defendants' actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and
monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendants are enjoined and restrained by this Court.
COUNT II
(INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,515,700) 30. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 herein by reference.
31. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271
et seq.
32. Plaintiff Child Protect, LLC is the exclusive licensee of the '700 patent with sole rights to enforce the '700 patent and sue infringers.
33. A copy of the '700 patent, titled "Methods for Controlling Telephone Position Reporting," is attached hereto as Exhibit
B.
34. The '700 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.
35. On information and belief, the Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '700 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the
'700 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Sprint Family Locator." The Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the '700 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
36. On information and belief, Defendant AT&T has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '700 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the
'700 patent, including, but not limited to, the "AT&T Family~ap." AT&T has infringed and continues to infringe the '700 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
37. On information and belief, Defendant Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim
1,
of the '700 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '700 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Verizon Chaperone." Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe the '700 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.38. On information and belief, Defendant Alltel has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '700 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '700 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Alltel Family Finder." Alltel has infringed and continues to
infringe
th~'700
patent either directly or through acts of contributory
infringementor inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.39. On information and belief, Defendant Virgin Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '700 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '700 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Buddy Beacon." Virgin Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe the '700 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
40. On information and belief, Defendant Helio has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '700 patent, by making, using, offering for
sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '700 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Buddy Beacon." Helio has infringed and continues to infringe the '700 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C.
§
271.41. Defendants' actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendants are enjoined by this court.
42. On information and belief, Defendants' infringement of the '700 patent has been and continues to be willful.
43. This case is exceptional pursuant to the provisions of35 U.S.C. § 285. 44. Plaintiff has complied with 35 U.S.C. §,287.
45. Defendants' actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and
monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendants are enjoined and restrained by this Court.
COUNT III
(INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,587,198) 46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I through 45 herein by reference.
47. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq.
48. Plaintiff Child Protect, LLC is the exclusive licensee of the' 198 patent with sole rights to enforce the' 198 patent and sue infringers.
49. A copy ofthe '198 patent, titled "Telephony Apparatus," is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
50. The '198 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued infull compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.
51. On information and belief, the Spritlt Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the' 198 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '198 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Sprint Family Locator." The Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the' 198 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
52. On information and belief, Defendant AT&T has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the' 198 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '198 patent, including, but not limited to, the "AT&T Family Map.n AT&T has infringed and continues to infringe the' 198 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C.
§
271.53. . On information and belief, Defendant Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the '198 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the '198 patent, including, but not limited to, the "Verizon Chaperone." Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe the' 198 patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
54. On information and belief,· Defendant Alltel has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the' 198 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the
'198
patent, including, but not limited to, the "Alltel Family Finder." Alltel has infringed and continues to infringe the'198
patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C.§
271.55. On information and belief, Defendant Virgin Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim
1,
ofthe'198
patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the'198
patent, including, but not limited to, the "Buddy Beacon." Virgin Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe the'198
patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C.§
271.56. On information and belief, Defendant Helio has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least claim 1, of the'
198
patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or practicing the methods covered by one or more claims of the'198
patent, including, but not limited to, the "Buddy Beacon." Helio has infringed andcontinues to infringe
the' 198
patent either directly
orthrough acts of contributory infringement
or inducement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271.
57. Defendants' actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendants are enj oined by this court.
58. On information and belief, Defendants' infringement of the
'198
patent has been and continues to be willful.59. This case is exceptional pursuant to the provisions of35 U.S.C.
§
285. 60; Plaintiffhas complied with 35 U.S.G.§
287.61.
Defendants' actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and
monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendants are enj oined
and restrained by this Court.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to:
a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint;
b) Enjoin Defendants, their agents, officers, servants, employees, attorneys and all
persons in active concert or participation with Defendants who receive notice of the
order from further infringement of United States Patent No.7,046,782, United States
Patent No. 7,515,700 and United States Patent No. 7,587,198;
c) Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendants' infringement in accordance with
35 U.S.C.
§284;
d) Award Plaintiff an ongoing royalty rate for Defendants' post-judgment infringement;
e) Find Defendants' infringement to be willful;
t)
Treble the damages in accordance with the provisions of35 U.S.C. §284;
g) Find the case to be exceptional under the provisions of35 U.S.C. § 285;
h) Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees under 3S U.S.C.
§ 285;
i)
Order the impounding and destruction of all Defendants' products that infringe the
'782 patent, '700 patent and '198 patent;
j)
Award Plaintiff pre-judgment and post judgment interest and costs; and
k) Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under
law or equity.
DATED: May_,2010. Respectfully submitted,
THE SIMON
LAW
FIRM, P.C. /s/ Timothy E. Grochocinski Anthony G. SimonTimothyE. Grochocinski 701 Market Street, Suite 1450 Saint Louis, Missouri 63101 P.314.241.2929
F.314.241.2029
asimon@simonlawpc.com teg@simon1awpc.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CHILD PROTECT, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel for all parties of record via the Court's ECF system on May 24,2010.
