IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No:

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-1877

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case5:13-cv HRL Document15 Filed01/22/13 Page1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Case No.

Case 4:14-cv BRW Document 58 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, an Arizona limited liability partnership, d/b/a HBI International,

Case 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DELAWARE

IN THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT

Case 2:11-cv KHV-DJW Document 1 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 5:07-cv D Document 1 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT. Nature of Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION : : Plaintiff,

Attorneys for Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/09/17 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:08-cv DF-CE Document 1 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. E4X, Inc.; Fiftyone, Inc.; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 5:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

Case 1:18-cv LPS-CJB Document 5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 47 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:10-cv D Document 119 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1770

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/05/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 2:10-cv Document 1 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant.

~ft~... J _J ~ ' ;1 '::1st~ ::i<isi~1 110.J tn Dis~~d;e ~

Case 1:16-cv TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Case 1:17-cv RGA Document 8 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 90 PageID #: 546 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

PlainSite. Legal Document. Ohio Northern District Court Case No. 5:12-cv Sherwin-Williams Company v. Wooster Brush Company.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC d/b/a Mall of America for its Verified Complaint

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/13/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv AJB-JMA Document 1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 16

Case 3:16-cv JAM Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 17

Case 1:06-cv RWR Document t Filed 06/22/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:12-cv JCC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO.

Recent Changes to the Patent Litigation Landscape and Predictions for the Future. June 12, 2018

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 33 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 3:15-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 18

Case 1:12-cv CCC Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 17 : : Defendants. :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:18-cv AKH Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 21 : : : : : : : : : : : : :

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Plaintiff, Defendants. undersigned counsel, for his Complaint against defendants Richard Prince ( Mr. Prince ),

MEDICINE LICENSE TO PUBLISH

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2013

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 2203 Filed 11/20/14 Page 1 of 5

MAY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND SANDRA EVANS, Plaintiff, VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1 Hayden Drive Petersburg, VA 23806

Case 1:17-cv KMT Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE. Sam Sloan. Petitioner INDEX No against-

Case 3:18-cv D Document 1 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 23 PageID 1

CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI AMENDED CLASS-ACTION PETITION

Yee ) and A.V. Jewelry Export-Import, Ltd. ( AV Jewelry ) (collectively Plaintiffs ), for their

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF PICKENS )

defendants, including HSBC, Isaac Franco, Ken Cayre, Joseph Dwek and Yeshuah, LLC, filed

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Filing # E-Filed 02/17/ :19:19 PM

Standard-Essential Patents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

14:"LCA/Estate"), do. ay , 14. lit. by its undersigned attorneys, Andrews Kurth LLP, alleges as follows:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :38 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016

Case 3:14-cv PK Document 53 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 7

Courthouse News Service

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2016

Case 5:16-cv HRL Document 1 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 10

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/24/17 Page 1 of 14

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/ /16/ :04 02:25 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2014

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. Cross-Complainant Western National Construction ("Western") in this action.

Case 2:15-cv JLR Document 8 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 2:05-cv JCJ Document 13 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

4. Jeffrey A. Goldberg and Andrew Federhar are attorneys who represented the Kingman Airport Authority with respect to the condemnation proceeding

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPLICATION

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RADIO TOWER NETWORKS, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No: vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Radio Tower Networks, LLC ( Plaintiff or RTN ), by and through its attorneys, files this Complaint against Crosspoint Communications, Inc. ( Defendant or Crosspoint ) for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,321,573 ( the 573 Patent ) and 6,690,937 ( the 937 Patent ). PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code. Plaintiff is seeking damages. 2. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (Federal Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the United States patent statutes. 3. Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its office located at 101 E. Park Blvd., Suite 600, Plano, TX 75074. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Texas corporation with a principal office located at 501 Duncan Perry Road, Arlington, Texas 75202. This Court has personal PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 1

jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in this District, has conducted business in this District, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in this District. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant s instrumentalities that are alleged herein to infringe were and continue to be used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold in this District. VENUE 6. On information and belief, venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400(b). Defendant is deemed to be a resident of this District. Alternatively, acts of infringement are occurring in this District and Defendant has a regular and established place of business in this District. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,321,573) 7. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference. 8. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in particular, under 35 U.S.C. 271, et seq. 9. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the 573 Patent with sole rights to enforce the 573 patent and sue infringers. 10. A copy of the 573 Patent, titled Radio and Data Network System, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. The 573 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least Claim 1 of the 573 Patent, by using radio and data network systems, and components for such systems, which are covered by one or more claims of PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 2

the 573 Patent. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the 573 Patent directly in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271. 13. Defendant uses radio and data networking systems, including, without limitation, the Wave OnCloud system, the DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multi Site system (including its components) and any similar components and systems ( Product ), which infringe at least Claim 1 of the 573 Patent. Defendant uses DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multi Site to connect twoway radio communications in a network with a hub and tower that can communicate with one or more radios at other towers via the hub. Defendant uses this system for communication regarding power distribution in various areas including North Texas. This is a Wide-Area system that covers numerous counties in North Texas with many sites. Defendant s multi-site radio communication system is a communication network system that communicates data to a user. Certain aspects of this element are illustrated on the webpage at: https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. 14. The Product includes a radio. For example, each site in the multi-site radio communications systems is in communication with and includes one or more two-way radios. Certain aspects of this element are illustrated on the webpage at: https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. 15. Radios used in the system are operatively adapted to transmit on a data channel and a control channel and to selectively alternate between transmitting on the data channel and the control channel. The Product s radios include source radios. The DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multi Site system uses a control channel and is a trunked system that has a data channel and a control channel. See https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. 16. The Product includes a data collection unit. For example, electric meter devices PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 3

have data collection units (e.g., for collecting usage data). The data collection unit is operatively adapted (e.g., by way of a transmitter) to communicate with other radios in the system. For example, Crosspoint can design, deliver, install and maintain your organization's two-way voice and data communications to the highest of industry standards. See at Crosspoint Communications, Integrator Capabilities, 1/17, found at https://www.crosspointcomm.com/uploads/file/crosspoint%20capabilities%20brochure_r5_121 3.pdf 17. The Product has multiple towers, including a first tower having a defined first coverage area and capable of communication with source radios when the radios are in the coverage area of the first tower. Defendant has sites in many different counties, each designed to communicate with source radios in the respective area. Id. 18. The Product has and/or utilizes a hub and a computer network, and the hub communicates with the first tower and with the computer network. Crosspoint uses DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multisite. This allows the source radios at a first tower to communicate with the two-way radios connected to a second tower. See https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/docs/business/product_lines/mototrbo/_doc uments/_static_files/mototrbo_ataglance_brochure.pdf ( It s a cost effective way to provide capacity for a single campus site. And if the planned merger with a neighboring healthcare facility goes ahead, they can simply link the two Capacity Plus sites over IP. Even as your organization grows larger, you need to ensure that you stay efficient. Capacity Plus Single Site and Capacity Plus Multi-Site (formerly known as Linked Capacity Plus) utilize Motorola innovation to pool radio resources and allocate them efficiently. ). The local hub comprises at least a switch/router that connects different towers. See PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 4

https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/docs/enxl/mot_connectplus_product_broch_en.pdf (picture reproduced below): 19. The Product s data collection unit, radio, towers and hub so configured so that data from the collection unit is transmittable by the radio to the first tower when the radio is in said first coverage area, is transmittable from the first tower to the hub, and is accessible to a user via the computer network. The Product s components link the towers and the local hub so that a source radio at one tower can communicate with one or more two-way radios at a second tower via the hub. 20. Defendant s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is enjoined by this court. 21. Defendant s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 5

monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined and restrained by this Court. 22. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 287. COUNT II (INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,690,937) 23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 herein by reference. 24. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in particular, under 35 U.S.C. 271, et seq. 25. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the 937 Patent with sole rights to enforce the 893 Patent and sue infringers. Exhibit B. 26. A copy of the 937 Patent, titled Radio Network System, is attached hereto as 27. The 937 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims, including at least Claims 1, 21, and 24 of the 937 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale radio network systems and components for such systems covered by one or more claims of the 937 Patent. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the 937 Patent directly in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271. 29. Regarding Claim 1, Defendant uses radio and data networking systems, including, without limitation, the Wave OnCloud system, the DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multi Site system (including its components) and any similar components and systems ( Product ), which infringe at least Claim 1 of the 573 Patent. Defendant uses DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multi Site to connect two-way radio communications in a network with a hub and tower that can PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 6

communicate with one or more radios at other towers via the hub. Defendant uses this system for communication regarding power distribution in various areas including North Texas. This is a Wide-Area system that covers numerous counties in North Texas with many sites. Defendant s multi-site radio communication system is a communication network system that communicates data to a user. Certain aspects of this element are illustrated on the webpage at: https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. 30. The Product s multi-site radio communication system is in communication with and includes two or more two-way radios. Each site in the multi-site radio communications system is in communication with and includes at least two or more two-way radios. See https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. Defendant s radio network systems link the towers so that the radio can communicate with one or more radios at other towers via the hub. 31. The Product includes at least one source radio. The Defendant s radios in connection with the communication system include source radios. See https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. 32. The Product includes multiple towers, including a first tower having a defined first coverage area and capable of communication with source radios when the source radio is in the first coverage area of the first tower. For example, Defendant has sites in many different counties, each designed to communicate with source radios in the particular area. See https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. 33. Defendant has multiple towers, including a second tower having a defined second coverage area and capable of communication with two or more two-way radios when the radios are in the coverage area of the second tower. See https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9262. PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 7

34. The Defendant has and/or utilizes a local hub and a computer network, and the hub communicates with the first tower and with the computer network. For example, the Product includes DMR Motorola Capacity Plus Multi-site, which allows source radios within the coverage area of a first tower to communicate with two-way radios connected to a second tower. See https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/docs/business/product_lines/mototrbo/_doc uments/_static_files/mototrbo_ataglance_brochure.pdf ( It s a cost effective way to provide capacity for a single campus site. And if the planned merger with a neighboring healthcare facility goes ahead, they can simply link the two Capacity Plus sites over IP. Even as your organization grows larger, you need to ensure that you stay efficient. Capacity Plus Single Site and Capacity Plus Multi-Site (formerly known as Linked Capacity Plus) utilize Motorola innovation to pool radio resources and allocate them efficiently. ). The local hub comprises at least a switch/router that connects different towers. See https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/docs/enxl/mot_connectplus_product_broch _en.pdf (picture reproduced below): PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 8

35. Defendant uses multiple towers and hub(s) configured to link the towers and the local hub(s) so that a source radio within the coverage area of one tower can communicate with one or more two-way radios at a second tower via the hub. Thus, the first tower, second tower, and local hub are configured that a signal from a source radio when the source radio is in the first coverage area may be received by the first tower and communicated to the local hub. The signal may also be communicated from the local hub to a second tower, and communicated from the second tower to at least two of the two-way radios at substantially the same time when those radios are in the second coverage area. For example, Private call, Group call, Multi-group call, Site all call, and Network all call are various features of the network illustrating the ability to communicate with all the other two-way radios on the network. 36. Regarding Claim 21, the first tower includes a site controller. Each of the PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 9

Product s towers includes a site controller. See Id. 37. Regarding Claim 24, the Product includes a third tower which communicates with the local hub and has a defined third coverage area. See https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=8649. The first, second, and third towers are configured and arranged such that communications with the first tower are transmitted to both the second and third towers at substantially the same time. 38. Defendant s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is enjoined by this court. 39. Defendant s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined and restrained by this Court. 40. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 287. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to: (a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all causes of action asserted herein; (b) Award Plaintiff past and future damages, costs, and expenses resulting from Defendant s infringement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284; (c) (d) Award Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs; That this case be declared exceptional and Plaintiff be awarded its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and (e) Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under law or equity. PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 10

Dated: November 8, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/jay Johnson JAY JOHNSON State Bar No. 24067322 D. BRADLEY KIZZIA State Bar No. 11547550 KIZZIA JOHNSON, PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 13000 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 451-0164 Fax: (214) 451-0165 jay@kjpllc.com bkizzia@kjpllc.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 11

EXHIBIT A PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 12

EXHIBIT B PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CROSSPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAGE 13