- 3 -
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