Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[conagra]

For reference, re=posting Calypso's Amended Complaint against Daic/Williamson
-----------------------------------


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

CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC., §
Plaintiff, §
§
and §
§
DRAGO DAIC, §
Co-Plaintiff and Cross-Claim Defendant, §
§
and JIMMY WILLIAMSON, PC, and § § § Case No. 2:08-CV-00441 Jury Demanded
KELLY D. STEPHENS, §
Third-Party Defendants, §
§
v. §
§
T-Mobile USA, Inc. §
§
Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF CALYPSO’S SECOND AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff and Cross-Claimant CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC. (“Calypso”), complaining of T-MOBILE USA, INC. (“T-Mobile”), and files these cross-claims against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant DRAGO DAIC (“Daic”) and third-party claims against JIMMY WILLIAMSON, P.C. (“Williamson”) (Daic and Williamson are referred to collectively herein as “D&W”) and KELLY D. STEPHENS of the Law Offices of Kelly D. Stephens (“Stephens”) (collectively “The Ownership Defendants”), and for cause of action would respectfully show the following:

I. Nature of the Action
This is an action for infringement of United States Patent 6,680,923 (the “‘923 Patent”) by T-Mobile.
This is also an action for a declaration of rights regarding a purported contract between Calypso and the Ownership Defendants, for a declaration of rights regarding the ‘923 Patent, for breach of contract, and for tortious interference.
II. Parties
Calypso is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Montgomery County, Texas.
Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “T-Mobile”) is a Washington Corporation and may be served with citation by serving its registered agent for service of process Corporation Service Company, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701-3232. T-Mobile has already appeared as a defendant in this matter, and may therefore be served by any of the methods of service set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2).
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Drago Daic is an individual, who is a citizen of the State of Texas, residing in Harris County, Texas. Daic has already appeared as a plaintiff in this matter, and may therefore be served by any of the methods of service set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2).
Jimmy Williamson, P.C. is a professional corporation with its principal place of business at 4310 Yoakum Blvd., Houston, Texas 77006. Williamson may be served at this address.
Kelly D. Stephens of the Law Offices of Kelly D. Stephens is an individual attorney, purporting to act as trustee as to certain intellectual properties, who practices in Houston, Texas. Stephens may be served at his business address, which is The Law Offices of Kelly D. Stephens, 2000 Bering Drive, Suite 265, Houston, Texas 77057.
III. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over Calypso’s patent infringement claims pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
The Court has jurisdiction over questions of patent ownership, assignments, and security interests under the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1338(a).

The Court also has jurisdiction over questions of the validity and enforceability of the Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement, purportedly executed April 3, 2009 (the “2009 Duress Agreement”), as well as questions regarding The Ownership Defendants’ bad acts, which questions turn on the construction of federal securities laws and an evaluation of the scope of the Parties’ duties thereunder.
The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Calypso’s cross-claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because Calypso’s cross-claims are so related to the claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution.
The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Calypso’s third-party claims against Williamson and Stephens under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because Calypso’s third-party claims are so related to the claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile because T-Mobile actively markets and conducts business in the Eastern District of Texas, such that T-Mobile’s appearance in this case does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. T-Mobile has also already appeared as a defendant in this case.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Drago Daic because he has appeared as a plaintiff in this case.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over the remaining Ownership Defendants because each is a Texas resident and conducts business in Texas.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) because certain of the acts complained herein occurred in this judicial district. T-Mobile actively sells its infringing products and services within this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to § 1400(b), under the theory of ancillary venue.
17. Calypso’s cross-claims and third-party claims are appropriate under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 13 and 14, and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court because the claims relate to title of the patent that is at issue in the present action.

IV. General Allegations

On January 20, 2004, U.S. Patent No. 6,680,923 B1, entitled “Communication System And Method” (“the ‘923 patent”), was duly and legally issued to inventor Robert Leon. A true and correct copy of the ‘923 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Calypso is the owner by assignment of the ‘923 patent, with full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce it.
Daic is a shareholder and creditor of Calypso. Daic and Williamson are owners by assignment of certain ownership rights in the ‘923 patent.
The ‘923 patent relates to Seamless fixed mobile convergence, which allows a seamless “hand off” between cellular networks and Wireless Local Area Networks.
Upon information and belief, T-Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘923 patent. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use, offering for sale, sale and/or importation of software/firmware, hardware, and services embodying the
inventions of the Patent-in-suit. T-Mobile is liable for infringement of the ‘923 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Calypso was founded in 1998, and has, from its inception, been a pioneer in the field of wireless communications. Calypso’s ground-breaking innovations include the ASNAP technology for seamless roaming of voice, video, and data between Wide Area Network access points, such as cellular towers, and short-range Internet access points, such Wi-Fi routers. Calypso’s ASNAP technology is protected by a portfolio of patents, including the ‘923 Patent.
Calypso has, in the last couple of years, undergone significant changes in leadership, including the replacement of Calypso’s president and CEO, and several members of Calypso’s board of directors. Prior to April 2008, the company was run by an individual named Carlos Mendoza. Mendoza is no longer with the company.
In 2002, Mendoza allegedly entered into one or more agreements with an individual called Drago Daic. Mendoza and Daic apparently made a series of outlandish promises to one another involving, among other things, varying numbers of shares of company stock and, allegedly, a promise that Daic could force the United States Patent Office to grant a patent.
In 2004, Daic sued Calypso on the basis of one or more of these undocumented agreements between him and Mendoza (Drago Daic, Curtis Scott Howell d/b/a Tribeca, Champion Classic, Inc. and U.S. Lights, Inc. v. Calypso Wireless, Inc., Carlos Mendoza and David Davila, Cause No. 2004-63048, in the 151st District Court of Harris County, Texas). According to Mendoza, Daic threatened to expose alleged self-dealing by Mendoza if he appeared to try to defend the suit. Mendoza, who has spent time in foreign jails for similar
activities, declined to appear, and Daic was able to secure a default judgment in excess of $100 Million against Calypso.
In early 2008, a group of Calypso shareholders, bought out Mendoza. Mendoza is no longer associated with Calypso, and has apparently returned to Latin America. All of Calypso’s previous officers and directors resigned, and Richard Pattin was named interim President, CEO, and sole director.
In April 2008, under new leadership, Calypso set about trying to clean up the mess created by Mendoza and Daic. (It was not until June 2009, however, after the return of Cristian Turrini and Dave William’s appointment as President of the company, that Calypso was able to limit Daic’s involvement and interference with the day-to-day affairs of the company.) Under the threat of Daic’s execution of the $100+ Million judgment, Calypso purportedly entered into an agreement (the “2008 Agreement,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2) under which, among other things, Daic and Williamson took a security interest in the ‘923 Patent in the form of a 25% ownership stake in the patent.
The 25% security interest purportedly granted in the 2008 Agreement covered two categories of intellectual property: the “ASNAP Patents” and the “Baxter Patents.”
30. The ASNAP Patents include, according to the 2008 Agreement, the ‘923 Patent,

U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/040,482, and PCT No. PCT/US01/07528, and:

all patents and applications throughout the world that claim priority to, directly or indirectly, or from which the foregoing claim priority, directly or indirectly; [and] all substitutions for and divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part, renewals, reissues, patent cooperation treaty applications, foreign applications, national phase entries, and extensions of the foregoing patents and applications throughout the world, and including patent applications and applications throughout the world for like protection that have now been or may in the future be granted on the invention disclosed in any of the forgoing patents or applications, including without limitation, those obtained or permissible under past, present, and future laws and statutes and ... all right, title, and interest in and to any and all rights and causes of action based on, arising out of, related to, or on account of past, present, and future unauthorized use and/or infringement of any and all of the foregoing, including but not limited to all past, present, and future awards, damages, and remedies related thereto or arising therefrom.

The Baxter Patents include, according to the 2008 Agreement:
United States Patents No. 6,385,306, No. 6,765,996, No. 6,839,412 and No. 7,031,439; [and] all patents and applications throughout the world that claim priority to (directly or indirectly) the foregoing, or from which the foregoing claim priority (directly or indirectly); [and] all substitutions for and divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part, renewals, reissues, patent cooperation treaty applications, foreign applications, national phase entries, and extensions of the foregoing patents and applications throughout the world, and including patent applications and applications throughout the world for like protection that have now been or may in the future be granted on the invention disclosed in any of the foregoing patents or applications, including without limitation, those obtained or permissible under past, present, and future laws and statutes; and ... all right, title, and interest in and to any and all rights and causes of action based on, arising out of, related to, or on account of past, present, and future unauthorized use and/or infringement of the [sic] any and all of the foregoing, including but not limited to all past, present, and future awards, damages, and remedies related thereto or arising therefrom.
Drago Daic did not comply with his obligations under the 2008 Agreement. He
made every effort, in violation of his obligations under the 2008 Agreement, to interfere with the

day-to-day operations of Calypso, as well as various arrangements and agreements that Calypso

attempted to enter into.

Daic also refused to join in as plaintiff in the present suit for infringement of the
In the spring of 2009, D&W complained that Calypso had breached the 2008
‘923 Patent. As part (25%) owner of the ‘923 Patent, Daic was a necessary party to the suit.

Agreement by, among other things, failing to consummate the deals or bring in investors – things

he himself had prevented. Daic threatened to enforce his $100+ Million default judgment, to

take the ‘923 Patent away from Calypso, along with the other patents in Calypso’s ASNAP

portfolio, and to refuse to cooperate in the current suit for patent infringement.

Calypso and D&W negotiated throughout the spring of 2009 to attempt to resolve D&W’s issues. In the end, D&W presented Calypso with a draft of the 2009 Duress Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
Calypso proposed several sets of revisions to D&W’s proposed amended agreement, but each time Calypso was told that D&W would only sign the agreement “as is,” and reminded of the various threats that D&W had made (which are described in a paragraph above).
To enter into a contract such as the 2009 Duress Agreement, a majority of Calypso’s board of directors would have had to approve of the terms of the agreement and of Calypso’s entry into the agreement. Daic and Williamson knew this fact, but the board of directors never gave its approval.
There were three individuals on the Calypso board of directors in the spring of 2009: (1) Cristian Turrini, (2) Richard Pattin, and (3) Kathy Daic. Kathy Daic is Drago Daic’s wife. She resigned her board position on April 3, 2009 – the same date as the purported execution of the 2009 Duress Agreement – and did not participate in the board’s consideration of the agreement or the negotiations of the terms of the agreement.
Cristian Turrini and Richard Pattin never agreed together that Calypso should enter into the 2009 Duress Agreement. In fact, Cristian Turrini repeatedly voiced his disagreement with the idea (and disapproval of the proposed terms of the 2009 Duress Agreement). This was communicated to D&W, along with the fact that Calypso could not enter into the 2009 Duress Agreement without Turrini’s consent. D&W therefore knew or should have known that there could be no valid 2009 Duress Agreement unless Cristian Turrini consented to Calypso’s entry into the agreement.
Although Richard Pattin signed the 2009 Duress Agreement, he did not have an authority to do so. Calypso’s Bylaws state that as the President, he “shall see that all orders and resolutions of the Board of Directors are carried into effect.” (Article IX, Section 7 of Calypso’s Bylaws). The signing of the 2009 Duress Agreement was never approved by the Board of Directors. In fact, as described above, the board member Cristian Turrini specifically and explicitly instructed Pattin, in writing, not to sign the 2009 Duress Agreement.
Among the terms of the 2009 Duress Agreement were several that Daic (as a shareholder and spouse of a former member of the board of directors) knew would be impossible for Calypso to comply with, including one provision that required Calypso to issue 13.4 Million shares of Calypso stock to Daic within two weeks of the purported execution of the 2009 Duress Agreement.
Neither the board of directors nor Richard Pattin had the requisite to authority issue the 13.4 Million shares without first obtaining shareholder approval (which, of course, was not done). Now that Calypso has not complied (for reasons of impossibility as well as the fact that Calypso never executed or agreed to the 2009 Duress Agreement), Daic is claiming that the 2009 Duress Agreement has been breached, and that he is entitled to foreclose on a security interest in the ‘923 Patent purportedly given to him by the terms of the 2009 Duress Agreement.
On November 19, 2009, Daic filed a Motion to Substitute a Party and Temporarily Stay the Case with this Court, asking that the Court substitute a trustee designated by him as plaintiff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c). In his Motion, Daic claims that he and Williamson have certain rights vis-à-vis the ASNAP Patents and Baxter Patents (which include the Patent-in-Suit, i.e., the ‘923 Patent) under the 2009 Duress Agreement, and, implicitly, that the 2009 Duress Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract. D&W purportedly assigned the
ASNAP and Baxter Patents (which include the ‘923 Patent) to Stephens, who is purportedly acting as trustee, and who is preparing to sell the patents at auction.
Actual controversies exist as to the existence, validity, and enforceability of the 2009 Duress Agreement, as well as to D&W’s rights vis-à-vis the ‘923 Patent. These controversies are ripe for adjudication by this Court.
Calypso now therefore seeks declaratory judgment, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, that the 2009 Duress Agreement is invalid and unenforceable.
Calypso also seeks declaratory judgment, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, that Calypso is the sole title holder of the ’923 Patent.
Calypso also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent any further attempts by Daic and Stephens to exercise or act upon Daic’s and Williamson’s alleged rights with respect to or interests in Calypso’s ‘923 Patent, and to prevent Daic from continuing to breach the terms of the 2008 Agreement.
Calypso also seeks damages and attorney’s fees relating to D&W’s breaches of the 2008 Agreement.
Calypso also seeks damages for Daic’s tortuous interference with Calypso’s business relationships and prospective contracts.
V. Causes of Action
A. Claim for Patent Infringement
Calypso repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 above as if fully set forth herein.
In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, T-Mobile has infringed and its continuing to infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘923 patent by practicing one or more claims of the ‘923 patent in its manufacture, use, offering for sale, sale and/or importation
of software/firmware, hardware, and services embodying the inventions of the patent-in-suit. Calypso served its infringement contentions on January 11, 2010, and hereby incorporates those contentions by reference.
Upon information and belief, T-Mobile’s acts have been willful and with full knowledge of the legally protected status of the ‘923 patent.
Calypso has been damaged by T-Mobile’s infringement and, unless T-Mobile obtains a license for the ‘923 patent, or is enjoined by the Court, T-Mobile will continue its infringing activity and Calypso will continue to be damaged.
B. Declaratory Judgment as to the 2009 Duress Agreement
Calypso repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 53 above as if fully set forth herein.
Calypso seeks declaratory judgment, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, that the 2009 Duress Agreement is invalid and unenforceable.
As described above, an actual controversy exists as to the existence, validity, and enforceability of the 2009 Duress Agreement. This controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court.
As described above, there was (1) no valid acceptance of the offer(s) made by D&W in providing the draft of the 2009 Duress Agreement to Calypso, (2) no meeting of the minds as to an agreement, particularly the one purportedly contained in the 2009 Duress Agreement, and (3) no consent by Calypso or no authority by Mr. Pattin to consent to the terms of the 2009 Duress Agreement. Because each of these is necessary in order for a contract to exist, the 2009 Duress Agreement does not evidence a contract between Calypso and D&W, and Calypso is not obligated to comply with any of the terms of the 2009 Duress Agreement.
As described above, the 2009 Duress Agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The 2009 Duress Agreement is unconscionable because (1) D&W engaged in overreaching and unethical behavior in attempting to force Calypso to accept the agreement, and
(2) Calypso had no viable alternative but to enter into the 2009 Duress Agreement due to lack of its bargaining power and ability to change or even negotiate the contract terms. The 2009 Duress Agreement is also unconscionable because the 2009 Duress Agreement is utterly lopsided, lacking any reasonable or subjective parity between the values allegedly exchanged. Because the 2009 Duress Agreement is unconscionable, it is invalid and unenforceable.

As described above, D&W threatened to misappropriate the ASNAP and Baxter patents, including the ‘923 Patent, and refused to cooperate in the current patent infringement suit, taking unjust advantage of Calypso’s economic duress to coerce Calypso to enter into the 2009 Duress Agreement. Daic’s behavior destroyed Calypso’s free agency, and caused an imminent economic restraint. Calypso had no means of protecting itself against such behavior. D&W thus forced Pattin to sign the 2009 Duress Agreement, purportedly on behalf of Calypso, and the 2009 Duress Agreement is therefore invalid and unenforceable.
Unless and until enjoined by this Court, D&W will continue to attempt to assert their alleged rights under the 2009 Duress Agreement.
Calypso is therefore entitled to a declaration that the 2009 Duress Agreement is invalid and unenforceable, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from continuing to assert their alleged rights under the 2009 Duress Agreement.
C. Declaratory Judgment as to the ‘923 Patent
Calypso repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 61 above as if fully set forth herein.
Calypso seeks declaratory judgment, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, that Calypso is the sole title holder of the ’923 Patent.
As described above, an actual controversy exists as to Daic’s, Williamson’s, and Stephens’ rights vis-à-vis the ‘923 Patent. This controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court.
Because, as described above, the 2009 Duress Agreement, upon which Daic bases D&W’s claims as to the ‘923 Patent, is invalid and unenforceable, D&W’s claims as to Calypso’s ’923 Patent are baseless.
Unless and until enjoined by this Court, D&W (with the aid of purported “trustee” Stephens) will continue to attempt to assert their alleged rights to the ‘923 Patent, causing Calypso irreparable harm.
Calypso is therefore entitled to a declaration that Calypso is the title holder of an undivided interest in the ’923 Patent, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from continuing to assert their alleged rights to the ‘923 Patent.
Calypso is also entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Daic, Williamson, and Stephens to prevent them from taking further steps to harm Calypso’s rights and interests in the ’923 Patent.
D. Breach of Contract of the 2008 Agreement
Calypso repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 68 above as if fully set forth herein.
If the 2008 Settlement Agreement is enforceable, D&W breached the terms of the 2008 Settlement Agreement by, among other things, interfering with and preventing Calypso from entering into arrangements and agreements with other companies to exploit Calypso’s ’923
Patent. Daic further breached the 2008 Agreement by refusing to take required steps or to cooperate with the prosecution of the current litigation.
Calypso suffered damages directly and proximately caused by D&W’s breach of the 2008 Settlement Agreement stemming from the cloud of title with respect to the ’923 Patent, as well as other damages associated with Daic’s breach.
Calypso has incurred significant attorney’s fees in dealing with the consequences of D&W’s breaches, and in bringing these claims against D&W.
Unless and until enjoined by this Court, D&W will continue to breach the 2008 Agreement, causing Calypso irreparable harm.
74. Calypso is therefore entitled to damages and attorney’s fees (under at least TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001 et seq.) relating to D&W’s breach of the 2008 Agreement, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from continuing to breach the 2008 Agreement.

E. Tortious Interference with Prospective Contracts

Calypso repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 74 above as if fully set forth herein.
D&W were strangers to third party negotiations between Calypso and other companies, including financial institutions and third-party companies such as Acacia Patent Acquisition Corporation (“APAC”). D&W knew or learned that the formation of contracts with each of these entities was reasonably probable. D&W were also aware of Calypso’s continuing business relationships with these entities.
D&W intentionally interfered with these business relationships and incipient contracts, thereby preventing the continuation of such business relationships, the formation of such contracts, and proximately damaging Calypso.
D&W’s actions were tortious and illegal for a variety of reasons, including that they were fraudulent, deceptive, disparaging, and larcenous.
79. Calypso suffered damages as a result of D&W’s tortious interference.

Unless and until enjoined by this Court, D&W will continue to interfere tortiously with Calypso’s business relationships, existing contracts, and prospective contracts, causing Calypso irreparable harm.
Calypso is therefore entitled to damages relating to D&W’s tortious interference, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from continuing to interfere with Calypso’s business relationships and prospective contracts.
F. Conversion of the Calypso’s Intellectual Property
Calypso repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 81 above as if fully set forth herein.
83. Calypso is the assignee and owner (of an undivided interest in) the ’923 Patent.

By and through their actions, Daic, Williamson, and Stephens converted title of the ’923 Patent by purporting to assign them to Stephens as “trustee,” and offering them up for sale.
Daic, Williamson, and Stephens have acted and are continuing to act voluntarily to permanently deprive Calypso of title to the ’923 Patent, and their actions amount to unlawful appropriation of the ‘923 Patent, with apparent intent to deprive Calypso of the patent permanently.
Calypso suffered damages directly and proximately caused by Daic’s, Williamson’s, and Stephens’ misappropriation of the ’923 Patent, to wit, the loss of the patent.
Unless and until enjoined by this Court, Daic, Williamson, and Stephens will sell the ’923 Patent, causing Calypso irreparable harm.
88. Calypso is therefore entitled to damages relating to Daic’s, Williamson’s, and

Stephens’ misappropriation of the ’923 Patent, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive

relief requiring Daic, Williamson, and Stephens to undo their purported assignment of the patent

and to prevent Daic, Williamson, and Stephens from selling the patent.

VI. Conditions Precedent

89. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

VII. Jury Demand

90. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) Calypso demands a trial by jury of all issues raised by

this Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint which are triable by jury.

VIII. Attorney’s Fees

91. Calypso is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs under TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE § 38.001 et. seq.

IX. Prayer

92. Calypso respectfully prays for the following relief:

a.
A preliminary and permanent injunction against T-Mobile, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, all parent and subsidiary companies, all assignees and successors in interest and those persons in active concert or participation with T-Mobile and enjoining them from continuing acts of infringement of Calypso’s ‘923 Patent;
b.
All actual damages due from T-Mobile;
c.
A trebling of said damages due from T-Mobile pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §204;
d.
Attorney’s fees due from T-Mobile pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §205;
e.
All costs of court due from T-Mobile;
f.
A declaration that the 2009 Duress Agreement is invalid and unenforceable;
g.
A declaration that Calypso is the title holder of an undivided interest in the ’923 Patent;
h. Damages relating to D&W’s breach of the 2008 Agreement;

i. Damages relating to D&W’s tortious interference;
j. Damages relating to Daic’s, misappropriation of the ’923 Patent; Williamson’s, and Stephens’
k. Preliminary and permanent injunctive reliefcontinuing to breach the 2008 Agreement; to prevent D&W from
l. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from

continuing to assert their alleged rights under the 2009 Duress Agreement;

m.
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from continuing to assert their alleged rights to the ‘923 Patent;
n.
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Daic, Williamson, and Stephens to prevent them from taking further steps to harm Calypso’s rights and interests in the ’923 Patent;
o.
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent D&W from continuing to interfere with Calypso’s business relationships and prospective contracts;
p.
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Daic, Williamson, and Stephens to vacate their purported assignment of the ‘923 Patent and to prevent Daic, Williamson, and Stephens from selling the ‘923 Patent;
q.
Attorney’s fees from the Ownership Defendants (under at least TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001 et seq.);
r.
All costs of court due from the Ownership Defendants; and
s.
Any such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 25, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul V. Storm Paul V. Storm (lead counsel) [e-mail]

State Bar No. 19325350 Anthony P. Miller [e-mail]

State Bar No. 24041484 Michael Leach [e-mail]

State Bar No. 24065598 Storm LLP 901 Main Street Suite 7100 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-347-4700 (Main) 214-347-4799 (Facsimile)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 25, 2010, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system, pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Paul V. Storm Paul V. Storm