Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 10-CV-661

v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), by its undersigned counsel, for its

complaint against Defendants Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (collectively

“Motorola”), alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Apple is a California corporation having its principal place of

business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California, 95014.

2. On information and belief, Motorola, Inc. is a corporation organized under

the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1303 East Algonquin Road,

Schaumburg, Illinois 60196.

3. On information and belief, Motorola Mobility, Inc. is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Motorola, Inc. organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal

place of business at 600 North U.S. Highway 45, Libertyville, Illinois 60048.
 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 2 of 9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction under Wis. Stats. § 801.05, including

at least under § 801.05(1)(d) because Motorola is engaged in substantial and not isolated

activities within Wisconsin and this judicial district.

6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and

1400(b).

THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS

7. The Accused Products are mobile devices, such as smartphones, and

associated software, including operating systems, user interfaces, and other application

software designed for use on, and loaded onto, such devices. Upon information and

belief, these products are manufactured, marketed and/or sold by Motorola in the United

States. At least the following mobile devices infringe one or more claims of one or more

of the Asserted Patents: Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555,

Devour i1, and Charm.1

THE ASSERTED PATENTS

8. Apple is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest to and in U.S.

Patent No. 7,812,828, entitled “Ellipse Fitting for Multi-Touch Surfaces,” issued on

October 12, 2010, to inventors Wayne Westerman and John G. Elias. The ’828 patent

1
The aforementioned are not intended to exclusively define or otherwise limit the
categories of Accused Products. Apple expects that Motorola will introduce additional
products in the future that will also infringe the Asserted Patents.
 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 3 of 9

issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/677,958, filed on February 22, 2007, which

was a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/015,434, filed on December 17,

2004, which was a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/236,513, filed on

January 25, 1999, which claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/072,509, filed

on January 26, 1998. A true and correct copy of the ’828 patent is attached to this

Complaint as Exhibit A.

9. Apple is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest to and in U.S.

Patent No. 7,663,607, entitled “Multipoint Touchscreen,” issued on February 16, 2010, to

inventors Steve Hotelling, Joshua A. Strickon, and Brian Q. Huppi. The ’607 patent

issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/840,862, filed on May 6, 2004. A true and

correct copy of the ’607 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.

10. Apple is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest to and in U.S.

Patent No. 5,379,430, entitled “Object-Oriented System Locator System,” issued on

January 3, 1995, to inventor Frank T. Nguyen. The ’430 patent issued from U.S. Patent

Application No. 102,080, filed on August 4, 1993. A true and correct copy of the ’430

patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.

COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,812,828

11. Apple incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10 above as if fully

set forth herein.

12. On information and belief, Motorola has infringed and continues to

infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce infringement of one or more claims of

the ’828 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (g), either directly or

indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for

sale and selling in the United States and by importing in to the United States, without
 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 4 of 9

authority, mobile devices and related software including but not limited to the Droid,

Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm.

13. Motorola directly infringes and/or will infringe the ’828 patent by making,

using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the mobile devices and related software

practicing the claimed inventions of the ’828 patent. Moreover, Motorola is aware of

the ’828 patent, at least because Motorola was provided with a copy of this Complaint

upon its filing. Motorola indirectly infringes the ’828 patent by knowingly inducing the

infringement of these patents by end users of its mobile devices. Further, on information

and belief, Motorola contributes to the infringement of the ’828 patent because Motorola

knows that its mobile devices are made for use in infringement and are not staple articles

of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.

14. Motorola’s infringing activities have caused and will continue to cause

Apple irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless Motorola’s

infringing activities are enjoined by this Court in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 283.

15. Apple has been and continues to be damaged by Motorola’s infringement

of the ’828 patent in an amount to be determined at trial.

16. On information and belief, Motorola’s infringement of the ’828 patent is

willful and deliberate, and justifies an increase in damages of up to three times in

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284.

17. On information and belief, Motorola’s infringement of the ’828 patent is

exceptional and entitles Apple to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this

action in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285.

 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 5 of 9

COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,663,607

18. Apple incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10 above as if fully

set forth herein.

19. On information and belief, Motorola has infringed and continues to

infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce infringement of one or more claims of

the ’607 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (g), either directly or

indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for

sale and selling in the United States and by importing in to the United States, without

authority, mobile devices and related software including but not limited to the Droid,

Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm.

20. Motorola directly infringes and/or will infringe the ’607 patent by making,

using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the mobile devices and related software

practicing the claimed inventions of the ’607 patent. Moreover, Motorola is aware of

the ’607 patent, at least because Motorola was provided with a copy of this Complaint

upon its filing. Motorola indirectly infringes the ’607 patent by knowingly inducing the

infringement of these patents by end users of its mobile devices. Further, on information

and belief, Motorola contributes to the infringement of the ’607 patent because Motorola

knows that its mobile devices are made for use in infringement and are not staple articles

of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.

21. Motorola’s infringing activities have caused and will continue to cause

Apple irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless Motorola’s

infringing activities are enjoined by this Court in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 283.

22. Apple has been and continues to be damaged by Motorola’s infringement

of the ’607 patent in an amount to be determined at trial.

 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 6 of 9

23. On information and belief, Motorola’s infringement of the ’607 patent is

willful and deliberate, and justifies an increase in damages of up to three times in

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284.

24. On information and belief, Motorola’s infringement of the ’607 patent is

exceptional and entitles Apple to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this

action in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285.

COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,379,430

25. Apple incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10 above as if fully

set forth herein.

26. On information and belief, Motorola has infringed and continues to

infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce infringement of one or more claims of

the ’430 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (g), either directly or

indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for

sale and selling in the United States and by importing in to the United States, without

authority, mobile devices and related software including but not limited to the Droid,

Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm.

27. Motorola directly infringes and/or will infringe the ’430 patent by making,

using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the mobile devices and related software

practicing the claimed inventions of the ’430 patent. Moreover, Motorola is aware of

the ’430 patent, at least because Motorola was provided with a copy of this Complaint

upon its filing. Motorola indirectly infringes the ’430 patent by knowingly inducing the

infringement of these patents by end users of its mobile devices. Further, on information

and belief, Motorola contributes to the infringement of the ’430 patent because Motorola
 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 7 of 9

knows that its mobile devices are made for use in infringement and are not staple articles

of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.

28. Motorola’s infringing activities have caused and will continue to cause

Apple irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless Motorola’s

infringing activities are enjoined by this Court in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 283.

29. Apple has been and continues to be damaged by Motorola’s infringement

of the ’430 patent in an amount to be determined at trial.

30. On information and belief, Motorola’s infringement of the ’430 patent is

willful and deliberate, and justifies an increase in damages of up to three times in

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284.

31. On information and belief, Motorola’s infringement of the ’430 patent is

exceptional and entitles Apple to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this

action in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

32. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Apple

demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

33. WHEREFORE, Apple respectfully prays for relief as follows:

(a) A judgment that Motorola has directly infringed, induced

infringement, and/or contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of each of

the ’828, ’607, and ’430 patents;

(b) A judgment permanently enjoining Motorola and its officers,

directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, attorneys, and all others acting in privity

or in concert with them, and their parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns,
 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 8 of 9

from further acts of infringement, contributory infringement, or inducement of

infringement of the Asserted Patents;

(c) A judgment awarding Apple all damages adequate to compensate

for Motorola’s infringement, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for

Motorola’s acts of infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at

the maximum rate permitted by law;

(d) A judgment that Motorola’s various acts of infringement have been

willful and deliberate, and therefore, that Apple is entitled to up to treble damages as

provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;

(e) A judgment that Motorola’s willful infringement renders this an

exceptional case entitling Apple to an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in

prosecuting this action, together with interest, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(f) Such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
 Case: 3:10-cv-00661-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 10/29/2010 Page 9 of 9

Dated: October 29, 2010 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ James Donald Peterson

James Donald Peterson (Wis. Bar No. 1022819)
[email protected]
GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
One East Main Street, Suite 500
P.O. Box 2719
Madison, WI 53701-2719
Telephone: (608) 257-3911
Facsimile: (608) 257-0609

Of Counsel:

Matthew D. Powers
[email protected]
Steven S. Cherensky
[email protected]
Jill J. Ho
[email protected]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100

Mark G. Davis
[email protected]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 682-7000
Facsimile: (202) 857-0940

Patricia Young
[email protected]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007

Attorneys for Plaintiff Apple Inc.

5587303_1