Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
19
APPLE INC., Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-4448
20
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR
21 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
v. NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
22 PATENT NOS. 7,292,870 AND
ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC., 7,894,837
23
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-4448
Case 3:20-cv-04448 Document 1 Filed 07/03/20 Page 2 of 11
1 repeated and pertinent contacts does not offend traditional notions of fairness and
2 substantial justice.
3 16. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d)
4 with respect to Apple’s declaratory judgment claims. As discussed above, this Court
5 has personal jurisdiction over Zipit because Zipit has engaged in actions in this
6 District that form the basis of Apple’s claims against Zipit—namely, the pre-suit
7 communications and interactions with Apple representatives in Cupertino, and the
8 meeting at Apple’s Cupertino headquarters.
9 17. An actual and justiciable controversy exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-
10 2202 between Apple and Zipit as to whether the Zipit’s Patents are infringed by the
11 Apple products and/or services that Zipit alleged to infringe the Zipit Patents in the
12 Former Zipit Litigation.
13 PATENTS-IN-SUIT
14 18. The ’870 patent, entitled “Instant Messaging Terminal Adapted For Wi-
15 Fi Access Points,” states on its face that it issued on November 6, 2007. A true and
16 correct copy of the ’870 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
17 19. The ’837 patent, entitled “Instant Messaging Terminal Adapted For Wi-
18 Fi Access Points,” states on its face that it issued on February 22, 2011. A true and
19 correct copy of the ’837 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
20 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21 (Declaratory Judgment That Apple Does Not Infringe The ’870 Patent)
22 20. Apple repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
23 paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
24 21. In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual,
25 justiciable, substantial, and immediate controversy between Apple, on the one hand,
26 and Zipit, on the other, regarding whether Apple infringes any claim of the ’870
27 patent.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
4 NON-INFRINGEMENT
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-4448
Case 3:20-cv-04448 Document 1 Filed 07/03/20 Page 6 of 11
1 22. Apple does not infringe, and has not infringed, any claim of the ’870
2 patent. For example, the ’870 patent has two independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and
3 20) and Zipit previously identified claim 20 as allegedly infringed in the Former Zipit
4 Litigation. Claim 20 is reproduced below:
5
20. A method for managing wireless network access and instant
6 messaging through a wireless access point with a handheld instant
messaging terminal comprising:
7
8 entering textual characters and graphical symbols with a data entry
device of a handheld terminal to form instant messages for delivery to an
9
instant messaging service;
10
displaying the entered textual characters and graphical symbols on a
11
display of the handheld terminal;
12
communicating instant messages with a wireless, Internet protocol
13
access point, the instant messages being communicated with a
14 communications module and wireless transceiver in the handheld
15 terminal;
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
5 NON-INFRINGEMENT
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-4448
Case 3:20-cv-04448 Document 1 Filed 07/03/20 Page 7 of 11
1 23. Claim 1 recites similar limitations. Apple does not infringe any claims
2 of the ’870 patent at least because no Apple product or service meets or embodies at
3 least the following limitations as recited in the claims: “entering textual characters
4 and graphical symbols with a data entry device of a handheld terminal to form instant
5 messages for delivery to an instant messaging service”; “displaying the entered
6 textual characters and graphical symbols on a display of the handheld terminal”;
7 “communicating instant messages with a wireless, Internet protocol access point, the
8 instant messages being communicated with a communications module and wireless
9 transceiver in the handheld terminal”; “coordinating authentication for coupling the
10 handheld instant messaging terminal to a local network through the wireless, Internet
11 protocol access point”; “implementing instant messaging and sessions protocols to
12 control a conversation session through the wireless, Internet protocol access point,
13 the instant messaging and session protocols being implemented within the handheld
14 instant messaging terminals”; “displaying conversation histories for active
15 conversations terminated by a loss of a network connection”; and “automatically
16 searching for wireless, Internet protocol network beacons after the conversation
17 histories are displayed.”
18 24. For example, as shown above, claim 20 recites “a data entry device” and
19 “a display” as separate components with additional ascribed limitations. Apple’s
20 iPhones do not have a separate “data entry device” as they contain only a display.
21 Namely, Apple’s iPhones have a software keyboard as part of the display having
22 distinct keyboard layouts for Emoji symbols and textual characters.
23 25. In view of the foregoing, there is an actual, justiciable, substantial, and
24 immediate controversy between Apple and Zipit regarding whether Apple infringes
25 any claim of the ’870 patent.
26 26. Apple is entitled to judgment declaring that it does not infringe the ’870
27 patent. Apple has no adequate remedy at law.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
6 NON-INFRINGEMENT
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-4448
Case 3:20-cv-04448 Document 1 Filed 07/03/20 Page 8 of 11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
10 NON-INFRINGEMENT
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-4448