1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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.

'14 CV0707 AJB JMA

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc. (ZTE (USA)), through counsel, hereby brings its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Pragmatus Mobile, LLC, and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. 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.
602246790v1

On information and belief, Defendant Pragmatus Mobile, LLC (Pragmatus) is

Case No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a Virginia limited liability company having a principal place of business at 601 North King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 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. (c). BACKGROUND 7. On its face the 124 patent entitled Personal Security and Tracking System Venue over these claims is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and

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.
COMPLAINT 602246790v1

On its face the 795 patent entitled Personal Security and Tracking System

-2-

Case No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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) 13. 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.
COMPLAINT 602246790v1

There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2201 and

-3-

Case No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2202, between Pragmatus and ZTE (USA) concerning the non-infringement of the 124 patent. 17. ZTE (USA) is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either

directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 124 patent either literally of under the doctrine of equivalents. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,466,795) 18. ZTE (USA) realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-17, inclusive

as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 19. Pragmatus has asserted claims against ZTE (USA) for alleged infringement of

the 795 patent. 20. 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 795 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 21. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2201 and

2202, between Pragmatus and ZTE (USA) concerning the non-infringement of the 795 patent. 22. ZTE (USA) is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either

directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 795 patent either literally of under the doctrine of equivalents. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE ZTE (USA) respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Pragmatus and grant ZTE (USA) the following relief: (a) Declare that ZTE (USA) has not infringed, induced the

infringement, or contributed to the infringement of any valid, enforceable claim of any of the Patents-in-Suit; (b)
COMPLAINT 602246790v1

Enjoin Pragmatus, its assigns, and all those in privity therewith -4Case No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COMPLAINT 602246790v1

from asserting any of the Patents-in-Suit against ZTE (USA) or any of its customers or suppliers; (c) Declare that this is an exceptional case entitling ZTE (USA) to an

award of its attorneys fees, together with interest, and the costs and expenses of the action under 35 U.S.C. 285; (d) Enter a judgment awarding ZTE (USA) its expenses, costs, and

attorneys fees in accordance with Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (e) Grant ZTE (USA) such other and further relief as this Court may

deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff ZTE (USA) demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. DATED: March 27, 2014 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

By /s/ Steven A. Moore Callie Bjurstrom Steven A. Moore Inge Larish Nicole S. Cunningham Richard Thill Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego CA 92111 Tel. (619) 234-5000 Fax (619) 236-1995 Attorneys for Plaintiff ZTE (USA) INC.

-5-

Case No.