Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ZTE v. Pragmatus Mobile

ZTE v. Pragmatus Mobile

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
ZTE v. Pragmatus Mobile
ZTE v. Pragmatus Mobile

More info:

Published by: PatentBlast on Mar 29, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





602246790v1 Case No.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Callie Bjurstrom (CA SBN 137816) callie.bjurstrom@pillsburylaw.com Steven A. Moore (CA SBN 232114) steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com Inge Larish (CA SBN 276720) inge.larish@pillsburylaw.com  Nicole S. Cunningham (CA SBN 234390) nicole.cunningham@pillsburylaw.com Richard Thill (CA SBN 236409) richard.thill@pillsburylaw.com Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101-3575 Telephone: 619-544-5000 Facsimile: 619-819-4418 Attorneys for Plaintiff ZTE (USA) INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ZTE (USA) INC., Plaintiff, vs. PRAGMATUS MOBILE, LLC, Defendant. )))))))))) Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
 Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE (USA)”), through counsel, hereby brings its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Pragmatus Mobile, LLC, and alleges as follows:
Plaintiff ZTE (USA) is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of  business at 2425 North Central Expressway, Suite 323, Richardson Texas, 75080. ZTE (USA) also has operations within this District, including at 9920 Pacific Heights Blvd, San Diego, CA 92121. 2.
On information and belief, Defendant Pragmatus Mobile, LLC (“Pragmatus”) is
COMPLAINT 602246790v1
- 2 -
Case No.
a Virginia limited liability company having a principal place of business at 601 North King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
These claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101
et  seq.
 and under the declaratory judgment act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. In view of the  previous filing by Pragmatus of a Complaint for Patent Infringement against ZTE (USA) and in view of ZTE (USA)’s defenses to that Complaint, there exists an actual and justiciable controversy between the parties regarding the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,149,124 (“the ‘124 patent”) and 8,466,795 (“the ‘795 patent”), collectively referred to as the “Patents-in-Suit.” 4.
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of these claims  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Pragmatus, on information and belief, at least because Pragmatus entities have established both minimum contacts and continuous and systematic contacts with the state of California, including directing business activities at this forum and to residents of this forum, seeking to monetize the Patents-in-Suit from residents of this forum, relying upon the activities within California of at least one licensee to support the enforcement of the Patents-in-Suit, and filing multiple lawsuits in California courts, and the exercise of jurisdiction over Pragmatus would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 6.
Venue over these claims is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
On its face the ‘124 patent entitled “Personal Security and Tracking System” indicates it was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 3, 2012. A copy of the ‘124 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 8.
On its face the ‘795 patent entitled “Personal Security and Tracking System”
COMPLAINT 602246790v1
- 3 -
Case No.
indicates it was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 8, 2013. A copy of the ‘795 patent is attached as Exhibit B. 9.
Pragmatus claims to be the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in the Patents-in-Suit. 10.
On October 10, 2013, Pragmatus filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware a Complaint for Patent Infringement against ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE Solutions Inc. for the alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. 11.
On January 24, 2014, the United States International Trade Commission instituted the 337-TA-905 Investigation based on a Complaint filed by Pragmatus on the Patents-in-Suit against ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. on December 18, 2013. 12.
ZTE (USA) is not liable for infringing any valid, enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit because the accused ZTE products and processes have not infringed and do not infringe any such valid claim. Accordingly, there is an actual, substantial and continuing  justiciable controversy between ZTE (USA) and Pragmatus regarding the alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by ZTE (USA) or by use of ZTE (USA)’s products and processes.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,149,124)
ZTE (USA) realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-12, inclusive as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 14.
Pragmatus has asserted claims against ZTE (USA) for alleged infringement of the ’124 patent. 15.
ZTE (USA) denies Pragmatus’ allegations of infringement. ZTE (USA) does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never made used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported a method or device that infringes either directly, contributorily, or  by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’124 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 16.
There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->