FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 1 of 28
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`SECURE COMMUNICATION
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`GOOGL
`E LLC,
`Defendant.
`Case No. 1:25-cv-1207-DAE
`J
`ury Trial Demanded
`F
`IRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`P
`ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff Secure Communication
`Technologies, LLC (“SCT”) files this First Amended Complaint for patent infringement against
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) alleging as follows:
`BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE SUIT
`1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This case asserts infringement of United States Patent
`Nos. 8,116,749 (the “’749 Patent ”), 11,334,918 (the “’918 Patent”), 11,443,344 (the “’344
`Patent”), 11,687,971 (the “’971 Patent”), and 11,995,685 (the “’685 Patent”) (collectively, “the
`Patents-in-Suit”).
`2. The Patents-in-Suit are owned by SCT.
`3. The inventions described and claimed in the Patents -in-Suit were invented and
`developed by Mr. James Proctor Jr. (a pioneering researcher, inventor, entrepreneur and well -
`recognized technical expert in the field of wireless communications ) and his father, James A.
`Proctor III.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 1 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 2 of 28
`THE PARTIES
`4. SCT is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 204
`North Fredonia Street, Longview, Texas 75601.
`5. Defendant is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
`Delaware. Google may be served with process through its registered agent, the Corporation Service
`Company d/b/a/ CSC-Lawyers Inc., at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et
`seq. This Court’s jurisdiction over this action is proper under the above statutes, including 35
`U.S.C. § 271, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and § 1338 (jurisdiction over
`patent actions).
`7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant consistent with the
`requirements of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the Texas Long Arm
`Statute.
`8. Defendant has regularly and systematically transacted business in Texas, directly
`or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, and/or committed acts of patent infringement in Texas
`as alleged more particularly below.
`9. Defendant has placed infringing products into the stream of commerce by shipping
`those products into Texas or knowing that the products would be shipped into Texas.
`10. In addition, on information and belief, Google conducts business at its Texas
`facilities related to its mobile devices, including the devices accused of infringement in this case.
`11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 2 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 3 of 28
`12. V enue is proper at to Defendant in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) because
`Defendant has a regular and established place of business in this district and has committed acts
`of infringement in this district.
`13. On information and belief, Defendant has a regular and established place of
`business in Austin , Texas, and is responsible for importing and selling smartphones, tablets,
`laptops, and other mobile devices and equipment in the United States.
`14. Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports Google-branded
`smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other electronics in this District, including the products accused
`of infringement herein.
`15. On information and belief, Defendant has operated, and on information and belief
`continues to operate, permanent offices located at 500 West Second Street, Austin, Texas, 78701;
`601 West Second Street, Austin, Texas 78701; 901 East 5th Street, Austin, Texas 78701; 500
`Chichon Street B, Austin, Texas 78702; 3601 South Congress Avenue, J -100, Austin, Texas
`78704; 304 East 24th Street, Austin, Texas 78705; 845 Interchange Boulevard, Austin, Texas
`78721; 6013 Technical Center Drive, Austin, Texas 78721; 4100 Smith School Road, Austin,
`Texas 78744; 807 Ruby Drive, Austin, Texas 78753; 10200 McKalla Place, Austin, Texas 78758;
`2350 South Midkiff Road, Midland, Texas 79701; and 1100 West County Road, Midland, Texas.
`16. Defendant also employs full-time personnel, such as engineers and managers in this
`district, including in Travis County.
`17. Defendant has also committed acts of infringement in this district by
`commercializing, marketing, selling, distributing, and servicing certain Google- branded devices,
`including but not limited to phones , tablets, and laptops, which are devices Plaintiff accuses of
`infringement in this case.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 3 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 4 of 28
`18. Defendant has also committed acts of infringement in this district by developing,
`commercializing, marketing, selling, and distributing its Android operating system for use in third
`party phones and tablets, which are devices Plaintiff accuses of infringement in this case.
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`The ’749 Patent
`19. The ’749 Patent, entitled “Protocol for anonymous wireless communication,” duly
`and legally issued on February 14, 2012, from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/364,938, filed on
`February 3, 2009, naming James A. Proctor, Jr. and James A. Proctor III as the inventors. A true
`and correct copy of the ’749 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference.
`20. The ’749 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos.
`61/095,359 (filed on September 9, 2008) and 61/095,001 (filed on September 8, 2008).
`21. SCT is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under the ’749
`Patent.
`22. SCT has standing to sue for infringement of the ’749 Patent.
`The ’918 Patent
`23. The ’918 Patent, entitled “Exchanging identifiers between wireless communication
`to determine further information to be exchanged or further services to be provided,” duly and
`legally issued on May 17, 2022, from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/271,410, filed on September
`21, 2016, naming James A. Proctor, Jr. and James A. Proctor III as the inventors. A true and
`correct copy of the ’918 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated by reference.
`24. The ’918 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 14/861,563, which
`was filed on September 22, 2015. The ’918 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Patent Application
`Nos. 14/472,477 ( filed on August 29, 2014 and which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,161,164),
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 4 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 5 of 28
`13/775,435 (filed on February 25, 2013 and which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,849,698),
`13/212,723 (filed on August 18, 2011 and which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,385,896), and
`12/364,828 (filed on February 3, 2009 and which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,090,359). The ’918
`Patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 61/095,359 (filed on
`September 9, 2008) and 61/095,001 (filed on September 8, 2008).
`25. SCT is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under the ’918
`Patent.
`26. SCT has standing to sue for infringement of the ’918 Patent.
`The ʼ344 Patent
`27. The ’ 344 Patent, entitled “ Efficient and secure communication using wireless
`service identifiers,” duly and legally issued on September 13, 2022, from U.S. Patent Application
`No. 17/366,826, filed on July 2, 2021, naming James A. Proctor, Jr. and James A. Proctor III as
`the inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’ 344 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and is
`incorporated by reference.
`28. The ’344 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/817,896 , which
`was filed on March 13, 2020 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,074,615. The ’344 Patent also claims
`priority to U.S. Patent Application Nos. 15/271,410 (filed on September 21, 2016), 14/861,563
`(filed on September 22, 2015), 14/472,477 (filed on August 29, 2014 and which issued as U.S.
`Patent No. 9,161,164), 13/775,435 (filed on February 25, 2013 and which issued as U.S. Patent
`No. 8,849,698), 13/212,723 (filed on August 18, 2011 and which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`8,385,896), and 12/364,828 (filed on February 3, 2009 and which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`8,090,359). The ’344 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos.
`61/095,359 (filed on September 9, 2008) and 61/095,001 (filed on September 8, 2008).
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 5 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 6 of 28
`29. SCT is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under the ’344
`Patent.
`30. SCT has standing to sue for infringement of the ’344 Patent.
`The ’971 Patent
`31. The ’ 971 Patent, entitled “ Efficient and secure communication using wireless
`service identifiers,” duly and legally issued on June 27, 2023, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`17/942,197, filed on September 12, 2022, naming James A. Proctor, Jr. and James A. Proctor III
`as the inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’ 971 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and is
`incorporated by reference.
`32. The ’971 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No s. 17/366,826 (filed
`on June 2, 2021 and which issued as the ’344 Patent), 16/817,896 (filed on March 13, 2020 and
`which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,074,615), 15/271,410 (filed on September 21, 2016),
`14/861,563 (filed on September 22, 2015), 14/472,477 (filed on August 29, 2014 and which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 9,161,164), 13/775,435 (filed on February 25, 2013 and which issued as U.S.
`Patent No. 8,849,698), 13/212,723 (filed on August 18, 2011 and which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`8,385,896), and 12/364,828 (filed on February 3, 2009 and which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`8,090,359). The ’344 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos.
`61/095,359 (filed on September 9, 2008) and 61/095,001 (filed on September 8, 2008).
`33. SCT is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under the ’971
`Patent.
`34. SCT has standing to sue for infringement of the ’971 Patent.
`The ’685 Patent
`35. The ’ 685 Patent, entitled “Efficient and secure communication using wireless
`service identifiers,” duly and legally issued on May 28, 2024, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 6 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 7 of 28
`18/204,528, filed on June 1, 2023, naming James A. Proctor, Jr. and James A. Proctor III as the
`inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’ 685 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and is
`incorporated by reference.
`36. The ’685 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application Nos. 17/942, 197 (filed
`on September 12, 2022 and which issued as the ’971 Patent), 17/366,826 (filed on June 2, 2021
`and which issued as the ’344 Patent), 16/817,896 (filed on March 13, 2020 and which issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 11,074,615), 15/271,410 (filed on September 21, 2016), 14/861,563 (filed on
`September 22, 2015), 14/472,477 (filed on August 29, 2014 and which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`9,161,164), 13/775,435 (filed on February 25, 2013 and which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`8,849,698), 13/212,723 (filed on August 18, 2011 and which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,385,896),
`and 12/364,828 (filed on February 3, 2009 and which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,090,359). The
`’344 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 61/095,359 (filed on
`September 9, 2008) and 61/095,001 (filed on September 8, 2008).
`37. SCT is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under the ’685
`Patent.
`38. SCT has standing to sue for infringement of the ’685 Patent.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`39. As detailed below, Defendant has infringed (and continues to infringe) one or more
`claims of each Patent-in-Suit by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the
`United States, and/or practicing the claimed method via its use of, certain Google-branded phones
`and tablets, including but not limited to the Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro Fold, Pixel 10 Pro, Pixel 10 Pro
`XL, Pixel 9a, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL, Pixel 9 Pro Fold, Pixel 9, Pixel 8 Pro, Pixel 8, Pixel 8a,
`and Pixel Tablet.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 7 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 8 of 28
`40. Also, as detailed below, Defendant has infringed (and continues to infringe) one or
`more claims of each Patent-in-Suit through the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States , and/or practicing the claimed method via its use of, certain
`Chromebook laptops, including those branded, marketed, and sold by Acer, ASUS, HP, and
`Lenovo.
`41. Also, as detailed below, Defendant has infringed (and continues to infringe) one or
`more claims of each Patent -in-Suit through the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing into the United States, and/or practicing the claimed method via its use of, certain
`Android smartphones, including those branded, marketed, and sold by Asus, Motorola Mobility
`and OnePlus.
`42. The products described and identified in preceding paragraphs numbered 39
`through 41 are referred to herein as the “Accused Products.”
`43. The Accused Products infringe one or more claims of each Patent -in-Suit via
`several features and associated functionalities including, but not limited to, Google’s Nearby
`Share/Quick Share, Fast Pair, and Find Hub (previously known as Find My) features.
`44. On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and
`of its infringement of the Patents-in-Suit at least through receipt or knowledge of SCT’s Original
`Complaint in Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`No. 2:24-cv-00484-JRG in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Samsung
`Case”) and/or through receipt or knowledge of SCT’s Infringement Contentions in the Samsung
`Case, in which SCT identified how the Accused Products in that case (including products that
`utilize Google’s Android operating system) infringe claims of the Patent s-in-Suit. Alternatively,
`Defendant has had knowledge of the Patent s-in-Suit, and its infringement of the Patent s-in-Suit,
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 8 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 9 of 28
`at least since sometime before July 2, 2025, when Defendant filed IPR Nos. 2025-01181, -1182,
`and -1183, challenging the validity of certain of the Patent s-in-Suit and referencing the Samsung
`Case.
`45. Defendant was aware of Mr. James Proctor Jr., the co-inventor of the Patents -in-
`Suit, prior to the filing of this lawsuit via Mr. Proctor’s expert work and his prior dealings with
`Defendant.
`46. In addition, Defendant was aware of the ’749 Patent at least as of February 9, 2012,
`when Mr. Proctor informed Defendant of the existence of the ’749 Patent, other patents related to
`the ’749 Patent, and their relevance to Defendant and Defendant’s products. See Exhibit 6.
`47. In addition, Defendant was aware of U.S. Patent No. 8,090,359 (“the ʼ359 Patent”)
`at least as of February 9, 2012, when Mr. Proctor informed Defendant of the existence of the ʼ359
`Patent, other patents related to the ʼ359 Patent, and their relevance to Def endant and Defendant’s
`products. See Id. The ʼ918, ʼ344, ʼ971, and ’685 Patents-in-Suit all claim priority, as continuation
`applications, to the ʼ359 Patent. In other words, Defendant has had knowledge of the disclosures
`of the ʼ918, ʼ344, ʼ971, and ’685 Patents-in-Suit since at least February 9, 2012, when Defendant
`learned of the ʼ359 Patent.
`48. In addition, Defendant ha s had knowledge of the ’749 Patent and other patents
`related to the Patents-in-Suit via their disclosure during Defendant’s patent prosecution activities.
`For example, Defendant disclosed the ’749 Patent during the prosecution of U.S. Patent
`Application No. 13/716,675 (which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,185,148) via a December 17, 2012
`Information Disclosure Statement submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”). Defendant also cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0061294 (an
`application which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,936,736) during the prosecution of U.S. Patent
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 9 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 10 of 28
`Application No. 12/969,291 (which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,364,172) via a May 3, 2012
`Information Disclosure Statement. Defendant also cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2010/0061294 during the prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/738,384 (which issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,831) via a May 7, 2014 Information Disclosure Statement. Defendant also
`cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0300802 (an application which issued as U.S.
`Patent No. 8,369,842) during the prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/305,266 (which
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,395,356) via a July 2, 2021 Information Disclosure Statement.
`49. On information and belief, Defendant employs a global team of individuals
`responsible for Defendant’s patent matters, including portfolio development and counseling,
`patent review and analysis, patent monitoring and tracking, and patent licensing and acquisitions.
`50. On information and belief, Defendant’s internal legal team consists of over 900
`lawyers, a substantial portion of which are tasked with, and focus on, patent matters, including
`patent review and analysis, patent monitoring and tracking, and patent licensing and acquisitions.
`This is in addition to Defendant’s substantial external legal team that also supports and counsels
`Defendant on patent related matters.
`51. Further discovery may reveal earlier knowledge of one or more of the Patents -in-
`Suit, which would provide additional evidence of Defendant’s willful infringement of the Patents-
`in-Suit.
`52. All of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit claim patent-eligible subject matter
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`53. Each Patent-in-Suit claims priority to one or more provisional applications filed as
`early as September 8, 2008.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 10 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 11 of 28
`54. Each Patent -in-Suit claims priority to one or more non- provisional applications
`filed as early as February 3, 2009.
`55. The inventions claimed in each asserted claim in each Patent-in-Suit are entitled to
`an invention date at least as early as September 8, 2008.
`56. In the alternative, the inventions claimed in each asserted claim in each Patent -in-
`Suit are entitled to an invention date at least as early as February 3, 2009.
`57. None of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit claims are directed to an abstract
`idea, and each such claim is thus patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`58. While devices such as smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices are
`ubiquitous in today’s world, the state of such technologies was much different in the September
`2008 to February 2009 time period. The iPhone was released in 2007, and the iPad was released
`in 2010. Google did not release its first smartphone (the Nexus One) until January 2010.
`59. The inventions in the Patents-in-Suit were years ahead of the release of the accused
`products and functionalities. For example, on information and belief, Google’s Nearby Share
`feature was not released until 2020, Google’s Fast Pair feature was not releas ed until 2017, and
`Google’s Find Hub feature was not released until 2013.
`60. In addition, the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit were appreciably before the release
`of version 4.0 of the Bluetooth specification (the first version to include Bluetooth Low Energy),
`which was released in 2010.
`61. Each of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit is directed to addressing specific
`technological problems in wireless devices and recite specific technological improvements to such
`wireless devices.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 11 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 12 of 28
`62. Each of the asserted claims of the Patents -in-Suit contain inventive concepts such
`that they are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`63. None of the asserted claims of the Patents -in-Suit recite subject matter that, taken
`as a whole, was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the September 2008 to February 2009
`time period.
`64. Google’s own patent filings show that none of the asserted claims of the Patents -
`in-Suit were well -understood, routine, or conventional in the September 2008 to February 2009
`time period. For example, Google filed the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 9,961,494 in
`August 2012 and European Patent Application EP2885571A1 in July 2013, both entitled “Sharing
`content with nearby devices.”
`65. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to SCT . SCT is entitled to
`recover from Defendant the damages sustained by SCT as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in
`an amount subject to proof at trial.
`66. For each count of infringement listed below, SCT incorporates and re -states the
`allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above, including these General Allegations, as
`if fully set forth in each count of infringement.
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’749 PATENT
`67. SCT incorporates herein the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 66.
`68. Defendant has directly infringed one or more claims of the ’749 Patent, including,
`for example, claim 1, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, offering for
`sale, and/or importing into the United States infringing products including, but not limited to, the
`Accused Products.
`69. An e xemplary claim chart demonstrating Defendant’s infringement of the ’749
`Patent is attached as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by reference.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 12 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 13 of 28
`70. Additionally, Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’749 Patent in violation of 35
`U.S.C. § 271(b) at least by inducing customers to purchase the Accused Products and/or by
`instructing customers how to use the Accused Products in a way that directly infringe s at least
`claim 1 of the ’749 Patent.
`71. Defendant has had knowledge of the ʼ749 Patent and of its infringement of the ʼ749
`Patent at least as of February 9, 2012. See Exhibit 6. Alternatively, Defendant has had knowledge
`of the ’749 Patent and of its infringement of the ’749 at least via Defendant’s disclosure of the
`’749 Patent during Defendant’s prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/716,675 (which
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,185,148) via a December 17, 2012 Information Disclosure Statement.
`Alternatively, on information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’749 Patent and of
`its infringement of the ’749 Patent at least through receipt or knowledge of SCT’s Original
`Complaint in the Samsung Case and/or through receipt or knowledge of SCT’s Infringement
`Contentions in the Samsung Case. Alternatively, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’749 Patent,
`and its infringement of the ’749 Patent, at least since sometime before July 2, 2025, when
`Defendant filed IPR2025-01181, 1182, and 1103, challenging the validity of the `918 Patent, the
`’344 Patent, and the ’971 Patent, respectively (each of which is related to the ’749 Patent) and
`referencing the Samsung Case. Alternatively, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’749 Patent
`and of its infringement of the ’749 Patent at least through receipt of this First Amended Complaint.
`72. On information and belief, despite Defendant’s knowledge of the ’749 Patent and
`of its infringement of the ’749 Patent, Defendant has not sought to remedy its infringement or
`sought to identify any good faith belief as to why it does not infringe the ’749 Patent.
`73. On information and belief, Defendant’s actions represented a specific intent to
`induce infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’749 Patent. For example, Defendant offered its
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 13 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 14 of 28
`customers extensive customer support and instructions that instructed and encouraged its
`customers to infringe the ’ 749 Patent via at least their use of the Accused Products . See, e.g.,
`materials cited in Exhibit 7; https://support.google.com/android/answer/15992026?hl=en,
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/3265955?hl=en, and
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/6160491?hl=en-
`GB#:~:text=If%20you%20lose%20an%20Android,Is%20visible%20on%20Google%20Play
`(exemplar Find Hub support pages).
`74. In addition, by receiving notice of the ’749 Patent and Defendant’s infringement
`thereof, Defendant obtained a subjective belief that there is a high probability that the Accused
`Products infringe the ’749 Patent. Despite being put on notice of infringement, on information
`and belief Defendant has not taken actions to avoid the conduct alleged to infringe, has not offered
`any reasons as to why Defendant does not infringe the ’749 Patent, and has not sought to remedy
`its infringements by offering to take a license. Defendant’s failure to act reflects deliberate actions
`to avoid learning that the Accused Products infringe the ’749 Patent and, more generally, a policy
`of not earnestly reviewing and respecting the intellectual property of others.
`75. Since issuance of the ’749 Patent, and prior to Defendant having notice of
`infringement, neither SCT nor its predecessors or licensees ha ve made, offered for sale, sold, or
`imported a product that practices any claim of the ’749 Patent or that would otherwise require
`marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`76. SCT may recover pre-suit damages for Defendant’s infringement of the ’749 Patent
`under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 14 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 15 of 28
`77. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’749 Patent, SCT has suffered and
`is owed monetary damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
`78. Defendant’s activities have been willful, egregious, wanton, and deliberate in
`disregard to SCT’s rights, justifying a finding of willful infringement, enhanced damages under
`35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 285.
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’918 PATENT
`79. SCT incorporates herein the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 78.
`80. Defendant has directly infringed one or more claims of the ’918 Patent, including,
`for example, claims 1 and 9, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, offering
`for sale, and/or importing into the United States infringing products including, but not limited to,
`the Accused Products.
`81. Exemplary claim charts demonstrating Defendant’s infringement of the ʼ918 Patent
`are attached as Exhibits 8-10 and incorporated herein by reference.
`82. Additionally, Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’918 Patent in violation of 35
`U.S.C. § 271(b) at least by inducing customers to purchase the Accused Products and/or by
`instructing customers how to use the Accused Products in a way that directly infringe s at least
`claims 1 and 9 of the ’918 Patent.
`83. On information and belief, as discussed supra, Defendant has had, or should have
`had, knowledge of the ʼ918 Patent as of May 17, 2022, the date the ʼ918 Patent issued, based on
`Defendant’s knowledge of related patents and publications, including but not limited to, the ʼ359
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 15 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 16 of 28
`Patent, the ʼ749 Patent, and U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2010/0061294 and
`2011/0300802.
`84. Alternatively, on information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’918
`Patent and of its infringement of the ’ 918 Patent at least through receipt or knowledge of SCT’s
`Original Complaint in the Samsung Case and/or through receipt or knowledge of SCT’s
`Infringement Contentions in the Samsung Case, in which SCT identified how the Accused
`Products in that case (including products that utilize Google’s Android operating system) infringe
`claims of the ’918 Patent. Alternatively, Defendant has had knowledge of the `918 Patent, and its
`infringement of the `918 Patent, at least since sometime before July 2, 2025, when Defendant filed
`IPR2025-01181 challenging the validity of the `918 Patent and referencing the Samsung Case.
`Alternatively, Defendant has had knowledge of the `918 Patent, and its infringement of the `918
`Patent, through the filing of SCT’s Original Complaint in this case. Alternatively, Defendant has
`had knowledge of the ’918 Patent and of its infringement of the ’918 Patent at least through receipt
`of the Original Complaint in this matter, which was filed on August 4, 2025.
`85. On information and belief, despite Defendant’s knowledge of the ’918 Patent and
`of its infringement of the ’ 918 Patent, Defendant has not sought to remedy its infringement or
`sought to identify any good faith belief as to why it does not infringe the ’918 Patent.
`86. On information and belief, Defendant’s actions represented a specific intent to
`induce infringement of at least claims 1 and 9 of the ’918 Patent. For example, Defendant offered
`its customers extensive customer support and instructions that instructed and encouraged its
`customers to infringe the ’ 918 Patent via at least their use of the Accused Products . See, e.g.,
`materials cited in Exhibits 8-10; https://support.google.com/android/answer/9286773?hl=en and
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/15728591?hl=en (exemplar support pages for Quick
`Case 1:25-cv-01207-DAE Document 11 Filed 09/08/25 Page 16 of 28
`SCT Exhibit 2017
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 17 of 28
`Share);
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/15728092?hl=en#:~:text=Tap%20Location%20.,near
`by%20devices%20on%20or%20off. (exemplar support page for Fast Pair);
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/15992026?hl=en,
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/3265955?hl=en, and
`https://support.google.com/android/answer/6160491?hl=en-
`GB#:~:text=If%20you%20lose%20an%20Android,Is%20visible%20on%20Google%20Play
`(exemplar Find Hub support pages).
`87. In addition, by receiving notice of the ’918 Patent and Defendant’s infringement
`thereof, Defendant obtained a subjective belief that there is a high probability that the Accused
`Products infringe the ’918 Patent. Despite being put on notice of infringement, on information
`and belief Defendant has not taken actions to avoid the conduct alleged to infringe, has not offered
`any reasons as to why Defendant does not infringe the ’918 Patent, and has not sought to remedy
`its infringements by offering to take a license. Defendant’s failure to act reflects deliberate actions
`to avoid learning that the Accused Products infringe the ’918 Patent and, more generally, a policy
`of not earnestly reviewing and respecting the intellectual property of others.
`88. Since issuance of the ’918 Patent , and prior to Defendant having notice of
`infringement, neither SCT nor its predecessors or licensees ha ve made, offered for sale, sold, or
`imported a product that practices any claim of the ’918 Patent or that would otherwise require
`marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`89. SCT may recover p