Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WITRICITY CORPORATION, ) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF ) TECHNOLOGY, and AUCKLAND ) C.A. No. ______UNISERVICES LIMITED, ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs WiTricity Corporation (“WiTricity”), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(“MIT”) and Auckland UniServices Limited (“Auckland”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) for their
Complaint against Defendant Momentum Dynamics Corporation (“Momentum Dynamics”), hereby allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff WiTricity is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 57 Water Street, Watertown, MA 02472.
2. Plaintiff MIT is a non-profit private research and educational institution duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal place of business at 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139.
3. Plaintiff Auckland is a New Zealand limited liability company with a principal place of business at Level 10, 49 Symonds Street, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Momentum Dynamics is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 3 Pennsylvania Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355. Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 2
Upon information and belief, Defendant Momentum Dynamics develops wireless charging systems for the automotive and transportation industries in the United States.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Momentum Dynamics maintains a website at www.momentumdynamics.com that commercializes the accused technology by offering the technology for sale and development throughout the United States, including this
District.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
6. This is a civil action for the infringement by Momentum Dynamics of U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,741,734 (the “’734 Patent”); 8,304,935 (the “’935 Patent”); 8,710,701 (the “’701
Patent”); 8,884,581 (the “’581 Patent”); 9,184,595 (the “’595 Patent”); 9,306,635 (the “’635
Patent”); and 9,767,955 (the “’955 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). This action is based upon the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and arises from
Momentum Dynamics’ installations or proposed installations of wireless charging systems.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is subject to general and specific jurisdiction in the state of Delaware. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at least because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and resides in this District
Defendant has made certain minimum contacts with Delaware such that the maintenance of this suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
2 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3
9. The exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Defendant’s right to due process because, as described above, Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
Delaware corporate laws such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court here.
10. Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
1400(b) at least because Momentum Dynamics is incorporated in this District and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
11. On June 22, 2010, the ’734 Patent, titled “Wireless non-radiative energy transfer,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. MIT is the owner by assignment of the ’734 Patent and WiTricity is the exclusive licensee of the ’734
Patent, with the right to prosecute any third party infringement of the ’734 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’734 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
12. On November 6, 2012, the ’935 Patent, titled “Wireless energy transfer using field shaping to reduce loss,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. WiTricity is the owner by assignment of the ’935 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’935 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
13. On April 29, 2014, the ’701 Patent, titled “Antennas and their coupling characteristics for wireless power transfer via magnetic coupling,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. WiTricity is the owner by assignment of the
’701 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’701 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
14. On November 11, 2014, the ’581 Patent, titled “Adaptive wireless energy transfer system,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
3 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 4
WiTricity is the owner by assignment of the ’581 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’581
Patent is attached as Exhibit 4.
15. On November 10, 2015, the ’595 Patent, titled “Wireless energy transfer in lossy environments,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
WiTricity is the owner by assignment of the ’595 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’595
Patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
16. On April 5, 2016, the ’635 Patent, titled “Wireless energy transfer with reduced fields,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
WiTricity is the owner by assignment of the ’635 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’635
Patent is attached as Exhibit 6.
17. On September 19, 2017, the ’955 Patent, titled “Multi power sourced electric vehicle,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Auckland is the owner by assignment of the ’955 Patent and WiTricity is the licensee of the ’955
Patent in the field of road vehicles, with the exclusive right to enforce the ’955 Patent in the field of road vehicles. A true and correct copy of the ’955 Patent is attached as Exhibit 7.
BACKGROUND
18. WiTricity was founded in 2007 based on new technology for wireless electricity transfer. The technology, invented and patented by a team of physicists from MIT, is known as
“highly resonant wireless power transfer,” enabling transfer of power from one device to the other at high efficiency and over a distance range. Highly resonant wireless power transfer is the foundational technology underlying resonant-based systems for wireless charging of electric vehicles, including, upon information and belief, Momentum Dynamics’ system.
4 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 5
19. WiTricity continues to develop and patent the core technology necessary for wireless charging of electric vehicles, as well as acquire additional intellectual property building upon WiTricity’s foundational technology. WiTricity now controls over 1000 issued patents worldwide.
ACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION
20. Momentum Dynamics’ website states that the “Momentum Charger is a modular platform technology capable of spanning across multiple vehicle types automatically and without a plug,” describing its technology as an “automatic inductive charging system” and “high power inductive charging technologies.”1 Momentum Dynamics’ website, shown below, further explains that its technology uses highly resonant wireless power transfer invented by WiTricity.2
1 https://momentumdynamics.com/ (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020). 2 https://momentumdynamics.com/thetech/ (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020).
5 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 6
21. Upon information and belief, Momentum Dynamics has installed or proposed to install its wireless electric vehicle charging systems on various public bus networks, including in
Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts,3 Chattanooga, Tennessee,4 Wenatchee, Washington5 and
Howard County, Maryland.6
COUNT I
Infringement of the ’734 Patent
22. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’734 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 6, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8,7 and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 6 of the ’734 Patent.
23. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’734 Patent since at least as early as June 4, 2015, when WiTricity sent a letter to Momentum Dynamics seeking to open licensing discussions and stated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing WiTricity’s patents. In the alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’734
3 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/momentum-dynamics-will-deliver-200-kw- wireless-charging-systems-for-marthas-vineyard-transit-buses-300722663.html (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020). 4 https://insideevs.com/news/339620/america-gets-its-second-200-kw-wireless-bus-charging- system/ (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020); https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shift-to- electric-transit-buses-continues-as-momentum-dynamics-installs-americas-second-200-kw- wireless-charging-system-300677782.html (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020). 5 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/momentum-dynamics-wireless-chargers-to- provide-unlimited-driving-range-on-10-battery-electric-buses-delivered-to-link-transit-in- washington-state-301081095.html (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020). 6 https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160414006080/en/Momentum%C2%AE- Dynamics-Completes-Testing-50kW-Wireless-Charging (last accessed Nov. 12, 2020). 7 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
6 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7
Patent since at least as early as November 16, 2020, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’734 Patent.
In the alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’734 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after June
4, 2015 would be with Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’734 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’734 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the
’734 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’734 Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
24. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 6 of the ’734 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’734 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 6 of the ’734 Patent, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(a).
25. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’734 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
26. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 6 of the ’734 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing
7 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 8
manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’734 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 6 of the ’734 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
27. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’734 Patent.
28. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
29. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
30. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’734 Patent was and continues to be willful.
31. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
32. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’734
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’734 Patent.
COUNT II
Infringement of the ’935 Patent
33. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’935 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
8 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 9
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9,8 and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 1 of the ’935 Patent.
34. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’935 Patent since at least as early as June 4, 2015, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’935 Patent. In the alternative,
Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’935 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after June 4, 2015 would be with
Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’935 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’935
Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the ’935 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’935
Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
35. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’935 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’935 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’935 Patent, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(a).
36. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use
8 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
9 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 10
the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’935 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
37. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’935 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’935 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’935 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
38. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’935 Patent.
39. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
40. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
41. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’935 Patent was and continues to be willful.
42. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
43. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’935
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’935 Patent.
10 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 11
COUNT III
Infringement of the ’701 Patent
44. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’701 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 10, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10,9 and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 10 of the ’701 Patent.
45. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’701 Patent since at least as early as November 16, 2020, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’701 Patent. In the alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’701 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after November
16, 2020 would be with Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’701 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’701 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the
’701 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’701 Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
46. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 10 of the ’701 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’701 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’
9 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
11 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 12
customers who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 10 of the ’701 Patent, in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
47. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’701 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
48. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 10 of the ’701 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’701 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 10 of the ’701 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
49. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’701 Patent.
50. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
51. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
52. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’701 Patent was and continues to be willful.
12 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 13
53. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
54. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’701
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’701 Patent.
COUNT IV
Infringement of the ’581 Patent
55. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’581 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 49, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11,10 and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 49 of the ’581 Patent.
56. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’581 Patent since at least as early as November 16, 2020, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’581 Patent. In the alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’581 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after November
16, 2020 would be with Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’581 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’581 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the
10 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
13 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 14
’581 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’581 Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
57. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 49 of the ’581 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’581 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 49 of the ’581 Patent, in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
58. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’581 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
59. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 49 of the ’581 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’581 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 49 of the ’581 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
60. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install,
14 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 15
make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’581 Patent.
61. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
62. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
63. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’581 Patent was and continues to be willful.
64. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
65. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’581
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’581 Patent.
COUNT V
Infringement of the ’595 Patent
66. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’595 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12,11 and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 1 of the ’595 Patent.
67. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’595 Patent since at least as early as November 16, 2020, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’595 Patent. In the
11 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
15 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 16
alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’595 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after November
16, 2020 would be with Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’595 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’595 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the
’595 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’595 Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
68. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’595 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’595 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’595 Patent, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(a).
69. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’595 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
70. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’595 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’595 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell,
16 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 17
and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’595 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
71. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’595 Patent.
72. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
73. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
74. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’595 Patent was and continues to be willful.
75. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
76. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’595
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’595 Patent.
COUNT VI
Infringement of the ’635 Patent
77. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’635 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13,12 and incorporated herein by
12 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
17 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 18
reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 1 of the ’635 Patent.
78. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’635 Patent since at least as early as November 16, 2020, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’635 Patent. In the alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’635 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after November
16, 2020 would be with Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’635 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’635 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the
’635 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’635 Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
79. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’635 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’635 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’635 Patent, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(a).
80. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’635 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
18 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 19
81. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’635 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’635 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’635 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
82. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’635 Patent.
83. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
84. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
85. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’635 Patent was and continues to be willful.
86. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
87. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’635
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’635 Patent.
19 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 20
COUNT VII
Infringement of the ’955 Patent
88. Momentum Dynamics has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’955 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum
Charger within the United States. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14,13 and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim chart detailing the correspondence between the Momentum Dynamics’ wireless charging systems and claim 1 of the ’955 Patent.
89. Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of infringement of the ’955 Patent since at least as early as November 16, 2020, when WiTricity renewed its request for licensing discussions and restated that Momentum Dynamics has been infringing the ’955 Patent. In the alternative, Momentum Dynamics has been on notice of the ’955 Patent since at least as early as the service of this Complaint. Momentum Dynamics’ continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the Momentum Charger within the United States after November
16, 2020 would be with Momentum Dynamics’ knowledge of the ’955 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’955 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the
’955 Patent, and knowledge that Momentum Dynamics’ encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’955 Patent by Momentum Dynamics’ customers.
90. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’955 Patent by actively inducing others to use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing such acts would constitute infringement of the ’955 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers
13 Exhibit 15 includes the definitions and sources of materials cited in the claim charts.
20 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 21
who use, make, sell, and/or offer for sale, the Momentum Charger in accordance with
Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’955 Patent, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(a).
91. Momentum Dynamics actively instructs, encourages, and/or aids such infringement through various activities, including by instructing and training its customers to use the Momentum Charger in a manner consistent with one or more claims of the ’955 Patent, through descriptions on Momentum Dynamics’ website and through product documentation.
92. Momentum Dynamics, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’955 Patent by contributing to their customers’ use, making, selling, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in an infringing manner, knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted to practice one or more of the claims of the ’955 Patent. Momentum Dynamics’ customers who make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale the Momentum Charger in accordance with Momentum Dynamics’ instructions infringe at least claim 1 of the ’955 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
93. Momentum Dynamics contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the Momentum Charger or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the Momentum Charger, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’955 Patent.
94. The Momentum Charger is not a staple article of commerce.
95. The Momentum Charger is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
96. Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’955 Patent was and continues to be willful.
21 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 22
97. Momentum Dynamics’ actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §
285.
98. Plaintiffs have been injured by Momentum Dynamics’ infringement of the ’955
Patent and will suffer irreparable harm unless Momentum Dynamics is enjoined from infringing the ’955 Patent.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
99. Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court enter judgment in their favor on each and every claim set forth above and award them including, but not limited to, the following relief:
A. The entry of judgement that Momentum Dynamics has directly or indirectly infringed the ’734, ’935, ’701, ’581, ’595, ’635 and ’955 Patents, and continue to do so;
B. The entry of a permanent injunction, enjoining Momentum Dynamics and all persons acting in concert or participation with Momentum Dynamics from further acts of direct and/or indirect infringement of the ’734, ’935, ’701, ’581, ’595, ’635 and ’955 Patents.
C. Entry of judgment against Momentum Dynamics, awarding Plaintiffs damages adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for Momentum Dynamics’ direct and/or indirect infringement of the ’734, ’935, ’701, ’581, ’595, ’635 and ’955 Patents, including any lost profit and for any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, but in any case no less than a reasonable royalty for such infringement, as well as an award of pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, costs, and expenses, and an accounting and award of
22 Case 1:20-cv-01671-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/20 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 23
damages against Momentum Dynamics for all future infringing acts occurring after the date such judgment is entered;
D. Entry of judgment as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285 that this case is exceptional and an award granting Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs; and
E. Entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs granting any further or additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
OF COUNSEL: By: /s/ David E. Moore David E. Moore (#3983) Jacob K. Baron Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446) Taylor Han Alan R. Silverstein (#5066) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Carla E. Jones (#6046) 10 St. James Ave. Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02116 1313 N. Market Street Tel: (617) 523-2700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 984-6000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Dated: December 9, 2020 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WiTricity Corporation, 6962567 / 50831 Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, and Auckland UniServices Limited
23